Devil in the detail | Letter
Published 10:07 am Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Much has been written about the larger issues involved in Proposition No. 2. Large issues are easier to debate. But, as in many cases in life, the devil is in the details. Notwithstanding criticism that the CRC didn’t do its homework, the CRC paid a lot of attention to detail. Here is just one example:
Section 3.43(1)(e) designates the administrator as the official responsible for preparing and presenting the county operating and capital budgets. Section 6.20 designates that official as the official to whom county agencies and departments are to submit budget requests. Section 6.10(1) further specifically designates the Administrator (not the Auditor) as the official to prepare and present the budget to the council. RCW 36.40.010, 030, and 050 provide for this. Under our charter, the administrator is charged with the full obligation of budget preparation and presentation.
Our auditor disagrees with the charter’s policy. She recognized that charter Section 3.20(2), after listing various county offices (including the auditor) provides “These offices shall be re-created by this charter and, unless amended by this charter, shall have the same powers and duties as in the past … .” In our auditor’s view as expressed in writing to the CRC, the charter’s assignment of budget responsibility to the administrator has led to inefficiency. She asked that her statutory budget responsibilities be restored to her office.
The legal and functional dynamics of separately elected and charter-appointed officials at the same level are such that neither can dictate to the other. Our prosecutor can’t resolve this, as both parties are his clients. For four years, our auditor to carried out her pre-charter budget function and our administrator ignored the charge placed upon him by the charter. The fifth year, our administrator sought to carry out his mandated duties resulting in confusion and inefficiency. The troublesome charter provision remains in effect today.
The CRC agreed with the auditor’s policy analysis. Proposition No. 2 restores efficiency by deleting budget responsibilities from the executive and replacing them with proposed Section 4.41.
Bill Appel
CRC Member
Waldron
