The Municipal League of King County
Opposes / Supports
Seattle Charter Amendments
November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot
SUMMARY
Eleven amendments to the City Charter are placed before Seattle voters on November 7:
- Amendment 6: Permits the Council to hold its regular meeting in an alternate
location in the event of an emergency or disaster.
- Amendment 7: Clarifies what constitutes a Council quorum in three situations:
regular circumstances, when there is a vacancy, when the Mayor declares an emergency.
- Amendment 8: Provides for the reappointment and reconfirmation of three department
heads every four years (five other department head positions are reconfirmed based on
municipal code, not charter amendment). The police and fire chiefs are excluded from reconfirmation.
- Amendment 9: Changes the City Auditor’s term of office from six years to four years
and changes the appointment authority from the Chair of the Finance Committee to a majority of the City Council.
- Amendment 10: Removes the Mayor’s appointment and removal authority for members of
the Planning Commission and provides instead that the members be appointed in a manner determined by ordinance.
- Amendment 11: Clarifies that the effective date for a successful ballot measure is
five days after election results are certified.
- Amendment 12: Allows all Councilmembers, elected and appointed, to vote on proposed Charter amendments.
- Amendment 13: Brings the Charter section about publication of "other" ballot measures into
conformity with other sections of the Charter dealing with publication of ballot measures.
- Amendment 14: Deletes the requirement that the City Clerk compile passed ordinances into an
annual bound book of those ordinances.
- Amendment 15: Corrects outdated references to "Comptroller" by changing them to "Clerk".
- Amendment 16: Deletes obsolete references to a Charter section that was repealed many years ago.
Of the above Amendments, the Municipal League determined that eight are “housekeeping” amendments and three
are substantive in nature and warrant detailed consideration. The three substantive amendments are 8, 9 and
10 which are discussed in the following sections.
ARGUMENTS FOR AMENDMENT 8
- The opportunity to reconfirm the heads of the Finance, Personnel and Parks departments every
four years is a sensible public accountability mechanism that allows regular City Council review
of the performance of executive departments.
- Additionally, reconfirmation allows for public input and a broader set of perspectives on the
performance of city functions.
- Reconfirmation will be routine in most cases in which department managers are performing well and
are meeting departmental objectives.
- This amendment provides a healthy shift in the balance of authority between the Mayor and the City Council
which in recent years has become somewhat one-sided.
- The amendment provides greater consistency in the treatment of department heads as a number of executive
positions are already subject to regular reconfirmation.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST AMENDMENT 8
- Reconfirmation of department heads is not necessary in instances where the function is largely
administrative or where another accountability mechanism already exists.
- Of the three departments affected by this amendment, the Finance and Personnel Departments are
largely administrative in nature and legislative and public review will add little to their functioning.
- The Parks Department already has a citizen-based Parks Commission which provides public input and accountability.
- The reconfirmation process can be misused to politicize certain functions and punish executives who
make unpopular but necessary decisions.
- This amendment is inconsistent in omitting reconfirmation for the Police and Fire Chiefs who manage
several of the largest city departments and are often subject to sensitive interactions with communities and citizens.
- The reconfirmation process is applied only to the heads of "departments" and not heads of "offices"
even though an office may be as large and as important to the public as a department.
- The Mayor should be accountable for the performance of these department heads.
ARGUMENTS FOR AMENDMENT 9
- The City Auditor is the only appointed official in the City with a six year term and consistency
with other management terms requires that this be changed to four years.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST AMENDMENT 9
- The City Auditor’s term of office was explicitly set at six years at the time the position
was created as an appointed office (it was formerly an elective office) to maintain some sense
of the necessary independence of the function.
- Other management terms are four years long to coincide with the terms of the elected executive,
the Mayor. The Auditor should not be a political appointee subject to political winds of change.
ARGUMENTS FOR AMENDMENT 10
- Of the numerous boards and commissions maintained by the City, the Planning Commission is one of
the few that is entirely appointed by the Mayor. Consistency of treatment calls for appointments
to be made by both the Mayor and the Council, which is the proposed arrangement authorized by a
current ordinance: The Mayor would appoint seven members, the Council would appoint seven members
and the Commission would appoint one member.
- The Planning Commission in particular is an important body with significant power in the area of
land use and zoning. Its members should be subject to a diversity of perspectives in their selection
so as to avoid undue influence by a single point of view.
- The current Mayor-appointed Commission appears to be populated largely by professionals in the planning
and development fields and to have conflict of interests.
- A balance of authority between the Mayor and the Council requires that the Planning Commission not be
selected only by the Mayor.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST AMENDMENT 10
- The Planning Commission is already subject to three-year terms and is already subject to confirmation
by the City Council. It is an advisory, not a decision-making body.
- Thus the Council already has the opportunity to influence the make-up of the Commission.
There is opportunity to identify any potential skewing of perspective or conflicts of interest among
Commissioners at the time of initial appointment.
- The Commission is not in need of fixing and the consistency argument is being applied selectively
to this one Commission.
- Subjecting the appointment and removal process to ordinance opens the door to unspecified future
changes and is an unwarranted change in procedure.
POSITION AND RATIONALE
The Municipal League Trustees recommend to voters the following positions:
SUPPORT Amendments 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. These are housekeeping in nature
and provide useful clarifications to the City Charter.
OPPOSE Amendment 8. Reconfirmation of department heads every four years is a useful
mechanism for reviewing executive performance and holding to account the Mayor and functions
that otherwise might not be exposed to scrutiny, but the Trustees concluded it was unnecessary
for the specified departments. The Trustees also had concerns that the reconfirmation process
not be misused to politicize functions and punish executives who make unpopular but necessary
decisions. The Trustees noted the inconsistency in selecting the heads of the Finance, Personnel
and Parks departments for reconfirmation, but omitting the Police and Fire Chiefs. For consistency
of policy and practice, these positions ought to be added to any list requiring reconfirmation.
Also, the Trustees concluded that a future charter review process should clarify the distinction
between “departments” and “offices” and establish criteria and standard procedures for reconfirmation.
OPPOSE Amendment 9. In the interest of maintaining the necessary independence of the audit function,
the City Auditor’s term of office should remain at six years. The Auditor should not be a political appointee
subject to the electoral cycle.
OPPOSE Amendment 10. The Planning Commission is being singled out in this amendment and its appointment
process is being selectively changed with no evidence that such a change is necessary. The Planning Commission
is already subject to three-year terms and is already subject to confirmation by the City Council. The Council
thus already has the opportunity to review for a diversity of perspectives and influence the make-up of the Commission.
|
