We endorse: Nothing sexy about Pierce County charter amendments, but they’re worth ‘yes’ votes

Statewide initiatives allow voters to make sweeping changes on everything from taxes to gun policy, soaring to dizzying heights (and sometimes flying too close to the sun). Pierce County Charter amendments, by contrast, have a way of bringing us back down to earth, where the grassroots and weeds need tending.

There’s nothing groundbreaking about the three charter amendments on the Nov. 6 ballot — just technical tweaks and housekeeping items. Why not simply delegate this busy work to bureaucrats and elected officials? Because our 38-year-old county home-rule charter tasked “We the people” with getting our hands dirty once in a while.

None of the three proposals has stirred up controversy. All three merit “yes” votes.

Charter Amendment 48 would shift county government from a one-year to a two-year budget starting in 2020. It comes at the request of County Executive Bruce Dammeier, a former state legislator accustomed to writing budgets on a biennial cycle.

Being wedded to an annual budget calendar chews up time that staff and elected leaders could spend on important policy matters. A 24-month horizon is more effective for planning a long-range budget strategy, such as applying for multi-year grants.

The budget still could be updated at any time to account for unexpected spending needs or a sudden swing in revenue projections; in fact, state law requires local governments to conduct a mid-biennium review.

At least five Washington counties, including King, operate with two-year budgets. So do at least 48 cities and towns, including Tacoma and Lakewood. We see no reason why it can’t work in Pierce County, as long as officials don’t cut corners on public hearings and fiscal transparency.

Charter Amendment 49 is the classic housekeeping measure. It would clarify and clean up old language in the charter, such as references to “polling stations” that have been outdated since the advent of vote by mail.

It also would align county initiative and referendum petitions with the form and style used by the state. That means citizen petitioners no longer would have to seek the blessing of the county prosecutor or other filing officials before launching a signature-gathering campaign. Eliminating the middle man makes sense to us.

Lastly, Charter Amendment 50 establishes an alternative for filling vacancies in elected posts without involving the local political party machine. Normally, when someone holding partisan office leaves before his or her term is up, the County Council will appoint a replacement from a list of three names submitted by the party to which the exiting politician belongs.

But what if a county leader is elected without party affiliation? This isn’t a theoretical concept; consider Mary Robnett, the county prosecutor candidate who filed as a nonpartisan this year and has mounted a strong challenge to two-term incumbent Democrat Mark Lindquist.

Under the proposed change, if a non-affiliated office holder has to be replaced between elections for any reason, the County Council would choose from an open pool of applicants after a public notice. There’s no short list of names handpicked by a political party.

This amendment comes courtesy of Pierce County Auditor Julie Anderson. She is paid to ponder complex contingencies and be a vigilant steward of the local electoral process so that the rest of us don’t have to.

Until we sit down and mark our ballots, of course.

This story was originally published October 24, 2018 at 12:51 PM.