Thoughts to The Freeholders

I understand the Freeholders are tentatively set on having 5 County Commissioners, rather than three - as well as keeping our various elected (and not beholden to current banana republic designs) officeholders in place (Auditor, Treasurer, Sheriff, etc). This is a good sign, in that our Freeholders believe that too much power is concentrated in the hands of the myopic few. I also understand that Freeholders are possibly leaning towards a County Executive, or some form of "strong-mayor" government - also a good thing.

I am encouraged by what's coming out of their meetings. I do, however, have some considerations that I hope the Freeholders take into account (I realize I'm one voice among the many masses, different and indifferent, clamoring for attention to these folks):

- Number of Commissioners: 5 is probably OK. Snohomish (800K pop) has five.

I am a bit concerned about having Commishes by district (like how we have now) for a couple reasons - one, voting by district tends to concentrate power in the hands of certain districts, and/or certain parties, over others, given the differences between urban and rural voters (rural voters are more conservative, older, and tend to vote more, than urban ones - giving us our current situation where the "outer two" districts - non-Vancouver - voters are weighted towards needs of, well, rural conservative voters, even though both districts have an equal share of urban/suburban voters). I really don't like the idea of gerrymandering by district - i.e., forcing all progressive votes into one district, ensuring a solid conservative district, etc. Gerrymandering (as we see in the current US Congress) enables incumbents to stay in office for much longer than they otherwise would be able to, as well as locking in seats towards certain "types" of candidates.

I'd be very curious to see what a County Council would be like with 5 "at-large" seats - where one runs, say, in one's district for the primary (and candidates have to reside in their district - a problem that comes up with "at-large" seats is that candidates tend to "clump" in certain areas over others - leaving large parts of jurisdictions without adequate representation (see Seattle City Council). Then, during the general, the top-two vote-getters in the primary from each district have to battle for votes from the WHOLE COUNTY - thus ensuring all voters are more equitably represented, and giving us dynamic candidates who have to seek the ever-shifting center in order to obtain office.

Which brings me to my next concern:

-NON PARTISAN COMMISSIONERS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS, PLEASE!!!! I am tired of the rancor between political parties in this County (and I know you are too). Divisive party politics have worked to our detriment in Clark County - just see the 2012 elections, where Boldt (a great candidate) would have been re-elected had the Dems not continued to run Brittain against him. Instead, we got Madore - with 34% of the vote. Seattle's Council is non-partisan. Portland's Council is too.

-ELECT A COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, or "executive" (as it were) - but ALSO divide areas of governmental responsibility among Commissioners. What this does is ensures "strong-mayor" government (accountable to voters directly, rather than county workers accountable only to their bosses) under ONE person, who can make day-to-day decisions without having to run to a group of differently-minded folks for the say-so. However, having Commishes responsible for specific areas of government also allows for checks and balances - rather than allowing power to corrupt in one person or office.

I'd prefer to avoid the silly "Bureau" nonsense that Portland has - what this does is ensures a weak executive and allows for "fiefdoms" in which power for a specific government function is concentrated in the hands of one Commissioner - from whom there's no appeal. Again, having both an elected exec (non-partisan) and an elected commish overseeing various county department areas provides CHECKS AND BALANCES.

-DEVOLVE URBAN AND SUBURBAN GOVT RESPONSIBILITIES ONTO THE VARIOUS UNINCOPORATED AREAS, and quit funding city-level government functions. The County CANNOT afford to provide "one-stop shopping" of governmental functions (particularly law enforcement, and parks, as well as zoning/planning) for all the various urban/suburban areas in this County that remain unincorporated. I'm sorry, Hazel Dell, Salmon Creek, and Orchards/Brush Prairie each have a big enough tax base, spread evenly among residential/commercial/industrial, to cover their own needs individually. Devolving government onto newly incorporated cities relieves pressure of a currently stretched budget that right now spends some 3/4 of our dollars on law enforcement alone. I'm not saying cut these areas loose without a paddle - devolve some responsbilities right away, phase in others - just as King County did 15 years ago when it forced its suburbs to become cities (Burien, Sea-Tac, Federal Way, Sammammish, Shoreline). Law enforcement, for instance, could be a snap for these new cities - simply transfer chain of command from County Sheriff to new city governments. Fire Districts (currently we have a plethora of these, all of which folks vote on Commishes for each, all of which depend in part on County money) could easily be folded into these new cities - saving even more money.

The good thing about being incorporated (before all you Hazel Dell folks start screaming bloody murder) is that you get to CONTROL YOUR OWN DESTINY. 'Nuff said.

-TAKE BACK THE COUNTY JAIL. I'm not real sure why the County continues to pay a consortium of 5 Superior Court judges what I'm assuming is 1.5x cost to run our jail and probation departments, when running it ourselves would be much cheaper. I hear we spend more to run our "privately-operated" jail, 50% more per inmate, than other counties in the state. I'm not sure what all this money's getting us - overcrowding, suicides, prison labor to pick up trash?

-GET RID OF SERVICES YOU CANNOT AFFORD. This goes with devolution (above). If you can't afford your share of a "metropolitan parks department" (City-County), devolve Parks in Vancouver to the City of Vancouver. Devolve other parks to newly formed city councils (or community councils, if incorporation isn't a go). Devolve economic planning for Clark County cities back to the cities. Get OUT of the Public Health business - yes, I love our stellar health department, but other counties do quite well in providing HIV services (for instance) through university-sponsored or private-sponsored non-profits.

-PUT ACHIEVABLE MEANS OF REFERENDUM, INITIATIVE, PETITION, and RECALL in place in a new County Charter. Part of our current trouble is so many of us feel powerless to stop things - the Bridge, the M&M coalition, whatever - because avenues of redress are difficult and costly. An OMSBUDSMAN's OFFICE (something King County has) would be ideal here.

So there ya go, Freeholders. My two cents to you.