Written by I have not studied this issue in detail, but on the surface I think the idea of having a non-paritisan king County Council seems appealing to me.
I have a feeling they might be better at resolving issues if they didn’t have the burden/confusion of maintaining partisan alliances…particularly since there are only nine members on the council.
Here is the info I received:
|
|
Attached Message |
|
| From: | Joe Fain <jfain@legislativeaffairs.us> [ Save Address ] | |
| Reply-to: | <contact@bettercounty.org> | |
| To: | <rcorman@ci.renton.wa.us> | |
| Subject: | Nonpartisan King County Government | |
| Date: | Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:27:28 -0800 |
–our apologies if this message is redundant–
Dear Council President Pro-Tem Corman:
As Council President Pro-Tem in the City of Renton and as a nonpartisan elected official in King County, we wanted to let you know about a reform effort underway to make the offices of King County Executive, Assessor, and Council nonpartisan.
“Citizens for Independent Government” is collecting signatures to put this issue, Initiative 26, before voters in the August Primary, and we need your help. Your endorsement or financial support will help us reach out to voters in Renton.
Please visit www.bettercounty.org to endorse and contribute to our effort today.
Here are a few of the top reasons to support nonpartisan elections for county officeholders:
Nonpartisan County Government….
• Improves voter choice by allowing voters to select from all candidates, instead of having to pick-a-party
• Respects the nonpartisan nature of local government
• Increases competition in elections by reducing the barriers to candidacy
• Strengthens partnerships between King County and City Councils, fire, sewer, hospital, utility, and water districts, which are all nonpartisan
Thank you for your consideration and support. If you have any questions or would like to find out how you can be more involved, please e-mail us at contact@bettercounty.org.
Best wishes,
Citizens for Independent Government
1.866.920.KING (5464)
I Like It!
Like our council, the King County Council should be non-partisan. As your blog posted earlier, most people consider themselves independent. To me it seems that the parties are now run by such extremists (left and right) it’s really time to marginalize their impact and let the voters decide if the person is the right fit based upon their experience and individual attributes. These local elections should not be decided–or even influenced–by some “party” endorsement or label which, as the last local election showed, appears to mean next to nothing, even in the Demo stronghold of King County.
I had originally read about this a month or so ago in one of the papers, and was extremely intrigued by the prospect of having another local government group elected as nonpartisans. I am a huge proponent of nonpartisan government, and feel that – especially in local government – partisan politics have no place. I also feel, to an extent, that the current parties have gotten so far out of touch with reality that extending the nonpartisan structure to state level would be positive.
I think in this day and age, we look at what color tie the person wears rather than how they feel on issues. Looking at national politics, we never really have discussion between all of the people running for a post because of the way the parties are structured. It’s difficult for a third party candidate to be taken seriously, and – as evidenced with the Washington primary coming up – the two major parties are only interested in what a select few think. (As a side note, my primary ballot had an accident involving the shredder last night.)
I *really* liked the discussion we had here locally during the last election, and feel that those are the types of discussions we need to be focusing on more. The candidates talked about issues, rather than party platform. While a few candidates felt the need to pull their political affiliations in, they were mostly side notes to the overall discussion.
It intrigues me that the King County council may go this direction. As much as they would like to dispute the fact, the King County Council is becoming irrelevant in this day and age. Most people care what their cities are doing, and life would easily go on without the County Council.
When Dunn gave his presentation to your group, he made sure to mention at least once that he was in the “Republican Leadership.” What does that have to do with providing essential county services like jails, courts, election services, property taxing, public records, and police services in unincorporated areas?
Adding a “NP” to each of their titles would help, I believe, direct the attention to the issues. It’s much easier to vote what their consitituents want if they aren’t having to worry about crossing party lines and ticking off the washed-up former politicians who head the parties.
Where do I sign the petition?
Colin Walker
I admit, as an active member of the Republican Party, I go back and forth on party affiliation, not only with county, but even city goverment. The no party affliation stance makes some sense; creating a more “sleave rolled up” type of environment to get things accomplished, without influences beyond the tasks at hand. However, as a voter, I do find value in a candidate’s party affliation to help guide me in their thought process. I will admit that most of the hot button Dem versus Rep issues has little to do with city & county, especially on the national level, but there are items that come up in local government, where party affliation might give me a clue, as a voter how a council member might vote;
* Do they believe that most issues should be resolved by governement?
* How do they value the principal of private ownership (i.e.- King County seems to be waging a war against rural property owners on what they choose to do with “their land”
* Overall fiscal restraint- i.e.- do we need to keep asking tax payers to fund all solutions?
On the negative side of party affiliation- would members of either party be beholden to party planks, and the wims of either parties leadership?
In the end, at least for County government, I think knowing ones party would allow voters to make choices based on prioties, especailly when the county wields so much power of property rights… but it is a close call.
My contention is that the issues you named should come out in discussion, without having the candidates tied to their political parties’ stance. I see myself as a moderate — I like some of the ideas that D’s have, and some that the R’s have, and really don’t like all of what either have to say.
I tend to think that this discussion would be easier if the candidates could speak their mind without having to worry about what the political parties say. In the case of County elections, we know that the media will be all over each of the candidates, and will communicate their perceived stances on issues. Of course that still leaves the issue of media bias, but that will be present no matter what.
My guess is that the elected bodies probably reflect pretty closely the political affiliation tendencies of the communities they serve. This comes naturally from the issues at hand.
I do see your point about having party affiliation being a good measure of what their stance on certain issues is. I, obviously, am leaning the other direction, though, and would hope that nonpartisan county leaders would help encourage more open discussion and debate about the issues concerning constituents.
CW
the bigger picture
The only “war” that the County is fighting would be the battle to protect critical areas from irresponsible destruction. They understand that future generations should have a few “property rights” of their own- like clean water and fresh air. Government is supposed to serve the greater good, not protect profit for the few at the expense of everyone else. I applaud King County for taking this obligation seriously, and for not bowing to the tremendous political pressure they have faced on this issue.
Re: the bigger picture
Hence the need for party affiliation, from the county. I view your verbiage as being in the same camp of those who see minimal value in individual rights, and a proponent of government to take, steal, dictate from its citizens. It is outrageous for King County to negate property ownership (by way of restrictions), especially without fair compensation. There is a division in the county, from the liberal, urban establishment to force their agenda on rural citizens…and party affiliation on the county level would help expose those who believe in big brother, and automatically assume the worse of individuals
ballots
So who’s thrilled about being required to sign an oath of party affiliation on our ballots for the presidential primary?
Who’s thrilled about the parties getting our names from that process?
I’m skeptical
At first glance, a non-partisan County Council does indeed appeal to me, for all the reasons others have mentioned, which I think are important. However, I’m concerned that the drive to make the Council non-partisan might simply be an effort (by some) to make it easier to elect socially conservative Republicans to the council. Right now, social conservatives have very little chance of being elected in most county districts. Having non-partisan seats, in which their party affiliations would not be front-and-center, would definitely make the elections more competitive to them. It’s far more difficult (although certainly not impossible) to ascertain a candidate’s views on particular issues when they are not compelled to subscribe to or defend their party’s platform.
As we’ve seen here even in Renton, it’s entirely possible for a fringe candidate to use the non-partisan label to hide his or her true political leanings and agendas. That’s how some cities have had their school boards and city councils stacked with anti-evolution or so-called “property rights” extremists, who don’t represent the diverse interests of their communities. Before we know it, our very progressive county could be represented by right-wingers with extreme agendas. Call me an alarmist, but when you’re dealing with people who believe they’re carrying out God’s plan for America, it’s important to remain on guard.
Just to be clear, though, a lot of Republicans are part not of the social conservatives’ master plan. I would never lump someone like Dave Reichert or Reagan Dunn in with Republicans who are more concerned about social issues than fiscal responsibility. UInfortunately, though there’s not a lot of room for moderate views with the Republican Party these days.
There’s also this issue: would making the KCC seats non-partisan really eliminate the parties’ influence? Personally, I think the partisanship would probably just go underground, making it more difficult to hold candidates and parties accountable for fundraising.
I’m interested in learning more about making the KCC non-partisan, but it would take a lot for me to actually vote for such a change.
Kevin Poole
Re: I’m skeptical
I’m excited to see such a robust discussion on this topic. One of the main motivators in bringing this initiative forward was to combat the highly restrictive pick-a-party primary that is damaging voter choice across Washington.
Parties provide an important forum for political discussion, as well as resources to candidates. They are NOT a substitute for open and meaningful public elections where voters should be able to chose from ALL candidates.
Here are some other reasons to support nonpartisan reform. For more information or to get involved, go to http://www.bettercounty.org!
Why Non-partisan?
King County Government Reform Fact Sheet
County Work is Not Ideological:
• Non-partisan elections make sense. The day-to-day responsibilities of county government have little to do with partisan ideologies and everything to do with service. There is no such thing as a Republican pothole or a Democratic stop light.
Primary Problems and Voter Choice:
• This reform will eliminate the controversial “pick a party primary” for King County offices and will restore voters’ freedom of choice.
Increase Competition in Elections:
• Political parties often limit competition in elections, especially when a member of its own party is an incumbent. Many decisions in partisan races are made behind closed doors, well before the public has a say.
• In the 1999 primary election, 22 candidates vied for five non-partisan Seattle City Council seats, in contrast to only nine candidates campaigning for six partisan King County Council seats. In 2003, 23 council candidates filed for five council positions in Seattle, while only 13 candidates fought over the seven county council seats. In 2005, only five newcomers entered the race against the recently reduced nine-member county council where all nine seats were up for election, leaving two incumbents unopposed. In 2007, two of the four county councilmembers up for election ran unopposed.
Non-Partisan Partners:
• King County primarily works with local governments (city councils and fire, hospital, conservation, water, sewer, and utility districts), which are all non-partisan. Local officials must view policy through the same non-partisan lens. This measure supports their ability to work together without the influence and distraction of partisan labels.
Organization Support:
• As early as 1967 the Municipal League came out in support of non-partisan reform in King County. In recent testimony to the King County Charter Review Committee, the Municipal League affirmed that the issue should be placed before the voters.
• In 2005, the League of Women voters publicly supported putting the non-partisan issue before the voters.
• In 2007, the Suburban Cities Association, an organization made up of elected officials representing 37 of the 39 cities in King County, endorsed non-partisan elections for the King County Council in a letter to the Charter Review Commission.
Why an Initiative:
• Community leaders and citizen groups have advocated for a non-partisan county council since 1952, during the first attempt by citizens to adopt a Home Rule Charter for King County, yet the issue has never been put to a vote.
• During the Metro/King County merger in 1992, a committee of county and city officials placed the non-partisan issue before the county council, where it was dismissed.
• In 1997, the King County Charter Commission again placed the amendment before the partisan county council. The council passed a non-binding motion to address the proposal the following April. It was never addressed.
Re: I’m skeptical
I’m still skeptical.
Re: I’m skeptical
It’s kind of funny Kevin, you and I agree on this point, but from different set of lenses. I see the more immediate danger is the radical liberal element that is infecting county government. I speak mainly from the property rights perspective. I would want to know if a candidate agrees with Ron Sims and the extreme liberal establishment, about the need for big city urban areas dictating to rural property owners what they can or can not do with their property. You see different causes, that you would want to identify if the candidate is in the same camp. Party affiliations does not define that camp, but it might be a start. It would be up to the candidates to express their views that are of interest to you, and to me.
The real only issue I have with what you say, is the statement about a “conservative master plan”. If you lump all conservatives into certain view, then you must do the same for extreme liberals. I get the feeling that my view and yours are not the same, but there are pragmatic elements of both, where folks like you (liberal- I assume) and conservative (individual rights) that would not be that far apart.
RP
Re: I’m skeptical
RP, I’m glad we’re in agreement that party affiliation can indeed help define a candidate’s stance on the issues. Given people’s propensity to misrepresent themselves in non-partisan elections (cough, cough), I believe it’s a necessary evil.
The “master plan” wording was used for dramatic effect, and was in reference to the theocratic aims of a powerful wing of the Republican party, both locally and nationally. As I said, I do *not* lump all Republicans into the same group — I’m well aware of how fractured the Republican Party is right now. My point was that social conservatives have dominated the party’s platform and leadership over the past couple of decades, and make up a highly-motivated segment of the party, one which moderate Republicans must constantly placate. The same can’t be said of the Democratic Party — there’s just not the same sort of massive ideological divide that exists within the Republican Party. So, while you may see Ron Sims and other left-of-center Democrats as analogous to ultra-right, socially conservative Republicans, I do not, because there’s no chasm diving Ron from the rest of his party. It’s true that Ron is pretty left-of-center, but I would hardly call him out of step with the majority of citizens he represents. I’m sure you think otherwise, but that’s why we have elections.
By the way, I don’t consider myself a “liberal.” I don’t listen to NPR, I don’t do yoga, I don’t shop at Whole Foods, and I don’t drive a Volvo. 🙂 I’m more of a pragmatic progressive (I just made that up). I’m actually quite torn on the issue of property rights as it relates to the Urban Growth Boundary’s restrictions. On one hand, I certainly wouldn’t want be told what I could do with land that had the misfortune of falling outside the boundary. On the other hand, I support efforts to control urban sprawl, which is a much bigger deal than property rights advocates make it out to be. Just driving down highway 512 between Puyallup and Lakewood in Pierce County is a prime example of what happens when growth is not well-planned or restricted. Sprawl is permanent. That said, I really try to put myself in property owners’ shoes. But my sympathy wanes when people make Ron Sims out to be a Marxist dictator who’s going to take their land and build collective farms on it.
Wow, where’d all that come from?
Getting back to the issue of a non-partisan KCC, I really don’t see it happening any time soon.
Kevin
Re: I’m skeptical
I am pretty much in line with the sentiment. Interesting how people’s perceptions differ on hot button issues…
• I can speak from firsthand knowledge, the Washington State GOP, and especially the King County GOP is very much on the moderate side, much to the chagrin of the Right side of the party. Believe me when I tell you, Reichart, Dunn (including the late Jennifer), Rob McKenna, and the elders of the party (Slade Gorton & Dan Evans) draw quite a bit of ire from the conservative side, yet they are the ones that get elected, which should tell you something about Washington State Republicans. Much more of a pragmatic approach, then we are given credit for.
• We don’t necessarily believe Ron Sims is a Marxist, but there is much resentment from most in the party, of what we perceive as big government trampling on individual rights. Personally, I believe there should be some compromise, but we believe the CAO goes way to far.
• On a lighter side, me as a committed conservative- I have tried Yoga with my wife (tougher than any workout I have done!), I do like Whole foods (great wine selection), and I really do listen to NPR (every now & then, there is some balance in their reporting)
Re: I’m skeptical
True, the Republicans you cite are more of the country club set than the fire and brimstone variety, but they still must answer to the social conservatives, especially when they take massive amounts of campaign contributions from them.
The property rights issue is important, and like you, I see the need for more compromise. It’s too bad the Republican Party doesn’t abide by its “individual rights” mantra when approaching other issues, though. Lincoln would surely be horrified to see some of the stuff in the state party’s platform.
I don’t listen to NPR because it bores me to tears. I guess I’m just not enough of an intellectual to appreciate its programming.
Re: I’m skeptical
Just to be clear, as a PCO, who attends King county party meetings, your analysis of answering to social conservatives, is so far off the mark. They absolutely do not answer to Social conservatives. In fact, those same conservatives cringe, wail, but to absolutely no avail. It is just a fact; I bear witness to it every time I get involved! I think a lot of people buy into the other way around due to media coverage, etc. By the way, on a national level, the moderate wing has taken over, with the eminent candidacy of McCain. If you think local social conservatives are complaining about King County, you should hear the drum beat to disavow John McCain (this attempt will fail)!
In terms of party platforms, I really pay no attention. I am sure Lincoln would be horrified looking at the democratic platform, as well as national security.
Re: I’m skeptical
I guess it all depends on your definition of moderate. Personally, I see the act of actively courting social conservatives, as even John McCain does, as appeasing a very powerful voting bloc, and giving into pressures that are truly un-Republican at their core. But thanks for the inside scoop!
Re: I’m skeptical
I guess it all depends on your definition of moderate. Personally, I see the act of actively courting social conservatives, as even John McCain does, as appeasing a very powerful voting bloc, and giving into pressures that are truly un-Republican at their core. But thanks for the inside scoop!
Re: I’m skeptical
You’re welcome. Really not an inside scope, but rather trying to get the message out over the hysterics from both sides and the media.
My intent is to show forcefully that pragmatism exists in my political, conservative universe, much more that I (we) are given credit for. I hate being lumped in with one vision of conservatives, and strongly wish to refute that. As in my earlier post, you have no idea of the battle for adhearance to ideology versus a pragmatic way of dealing with issues. And, at least here in Washington, the pragmatic side is winning dramatically! Perhaps that is the inside scoop you are referring to.
I also have no doubt that the same battle exists prominently on the democratic side of things. Left to the extremes from either side would produce a bad situation!
You say McCain is courting social conservatives, but the same can be said about the other party, courting extreme (and what I see as) radical liberals. I think you will discover with McCain, that he bows to no one on either side of the political spectrum – hence the intense battle by some social conservatives to derail his campaign. Here is another scoop; there is so much angst about the thought of a McCain presidency, that some in the conservative movement openly advocate a Hillary election over anyone else! And yet he fights on…I have to respect that…
Ok—-I realize this has gone way beyond the county party affliation debate, but I do find the dialog intersting.
Re: I’m skeptical
Very interesting discussion here… you readers are real political thinkers. I’m impressed with the level of commentary.
Re: I’m skeptical
Thanks for the forum, Randy. 🙂
Re: I’m skeptical
I understand how you might believe the “radical liberals” are equivalent to religious conservatives in their zeal (although I totally disagree with that comparison), but in reality, no battle is being fought over the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. The closest the party came to an ideological struggle in recent years was the shift towards DLC centrism with Bill Clinton, Joe Lieberman, & co., but that period has long since ended, and was hardly what one could call schismatic. Even Dennis Kucinich’s supporters don’t qualify as a “radical” bloc within the party, and they certainly aren’t going to abandon it if their issues aren’t addressed. They’ll be A-Ok with Hillary or Obama in office. The same cannot be said for social conservatives within the Republican Party, who are talking openly of supporting a third party presidential candidate. So, the situation with the Republicans is quite different. I hope the moderate voices prevail, because I really don’t have a problem with Barry Goldwater conservatism, and would really like to think of all Republicans as rational(e) people again.