|
Printer Friendly
Municipal Research News - Forms of County Government in Washington State - Continuity and Change
Forms of County Government in Washington State - Continuity and Change
Counties are the oldest form of local government in Washington, dating back to our pre-statehood, territorial days. When our state constitution was adopted in 1887, the framers formally recognized all of the counties that had been created by the territorial legislature, and, by the time Washington was admitted to the union two years later, there was a total of 34 counties. With the addition of five more over the next 20 years, the division of Washington State into counties was completed by 1911, bringing us to our current total of 39.
Historically, the role of counties has been to serve as an administrative arm of the state - maintaining records, providing courts and law enforcement, building roads, assessing property and collecting taxes, and conducting elections. Counties still perform these functions, as well as a growing list of other functions, under the supervision of various elected and appointed officials. Today, Washington's 39 counties range widely in population from 1,800,000 in King County to 2,350 in Garfield County.
Origins of County Governance Forms
The original form and structure of county governments in Washington was established by the territorial legislature and later adopted by succeeding legislatures. The form they chose was modeled after Iowa's county governments, which were characterized by a small three-member commission performing both legislative and executive roles and several other separately-elected officials performing specific functions such as property tax assessment, law enforcement, and tax collection.
The historical origins of county government in America go back even further and are commonly traced to the shire system in English history. Shires were controlled by the English monarchy through the appointment of local government officials such as justices of the peace. This system was brought to America by the English colonizers and became the basis, albeit with many local variations, for the very earliest forms of county government implemented by the states.
State Constitutional Requirements Regarding County Governance
Article 11, sections 3 through 5 of the Washington Constitution control the creation and governance of counties. The constitution allows for two types of county governments: 1) the "commission" form; and 2) the "home rule" charter form. Of the 39 counties, 33 noncharter counties operate under the commission form of government provided by state law. Six Washington counties have adopted "home rule" charters. Article 11, section 16 of the Washington Constitution allows counties and the cities within them to consolidate into one government entity.
The "Commission" Form of County Government
Article 11, section 5 of the Washington Constitution makes the commission form the standard form of county government throughout the state and sets forth, in general terms, the governmental structure that all commission counties must have.
Under the commission form, the county governing body consists of a three-member board of commissioners, elected on a partisan basis, which serves as the legislative body and also performs executive functions. No single administrator or executive oversees a county's operations under the commission form of government. While the county commissioners establish the budget and act as the county legislative body, they share administrative functions with several other independently-elected county officials, including a clerk, treasurer, sheriff, assessor, coroner, and auditor (or recorder). Other independently-elected county officials are the county prosecuting attorney and the judges of the superior court.
The existence of multiple, independently-elected officials makes county government quite different from city government, where the number of elected officials is fewer, being limited usually to a mayor and five to seven councilmembers. The independent election of multiple county government officials was intended to provide a broad system of checks and balances and to reduce opportunities for government corruption. Historically, the so-called "weak-mayor" form, in which an elected mayor is required to share control over administrative departments with several other elected officials, more closely resembles the county commission form in Washington. The "weak-mayor" form of city government was never implemented in Washington, the legislature choosing instead to provide for the "strong-mayor" form with fewer independently-elected officials and, in some classes of cities, a mayoral veto power.
Although there is no constitutional or statutory requirement for county commissioners to delegate any of their executive authority to a separately-appointed administrator, many of them have, to a limited degree, chosen to do so. The appointment of administrative positions to assist the county commissioners with their executive duties mirrors a trend found in many cities with the mayor-council form of government, where city administrator positions have been created to assist mayors with their executive duties.
The "Home Rule" Charter Form of County Government
Problems brought about by rapid population growth and urbanization, much of which were occurring in the unincorporated areas around cities during and immediately following the end of World War II, led to a constitutional amendment in 1948 allowing counties the option of adopting a "home rule" charter. This amendment was enacted to give counties the ability to restructure their government so they may be better able to manage and respond to these growth pressures.
A home rule charter allows counties greater flexibility in determining their form of government. The state constitution contains few specific requirements for the type of governmental structure that must be adopted, which effectively allows counties to adopt almost any form they choose. Whether initiated by a resolution of the board of commissioners or by a voter-submitted petition, the procedure requires the election of a board of freeholders to draft a proposed charter, which is then submitted to the voters for their approval or rejection. Although adoption of a charter does not change the general role and authority of counties, it does allow them to select a form of government that may be better suited to their particular needs.
In 1951, King County became the first county in Washington to draft and consider a home rule charter. The proposed charter sought to change several offices from partisan to nonpartisan and from elective to appointive status (except for the council) and also to establish a merit system. It was voted down, however, in an election held the following year, most likely due to the ambitious nature of the proposed reforms. King County's initial failure foreshadowed similar results that would occur in many other counties in the years to follow.
On its second attempt in 1969, King County became the first county in Washington to adopt a home rule charter, fully 21 years after the state constitution was amended to allow for their adoption. Since that time only five other counties have successfully adopted a home rule charter: Whatcom (1978); Clallam (1979); Snohomish (1980); Pierce (1981); and San Juan (2005). Several other counties, including Kitsap, Island, Thurston, Cowlitz, Ferry, Skamania, Spokane, Skagit, Grant, and Clark counties, have tried and failed to adopt home rule charters.
Although the number of charter counties is relatively small, they include three of the most populous counties in the state, so their combined population actually accounts for over half of the state's total population. This is the pattern nationally as well, where charter adoptions tend to be most prevalent among fast-growing, urbanizing counties.
City/County Consolidation
Article 11, section 16 of the Washington State Constitution contains the most far-reaching home rule reforms in that document. It allows a combined city-county charter to control virtually every aspect of local government within the county, including: the ability to control the existence of each city and special purpose district within the county; the array of officials for each city and special district and how they are selected; and the structure of government for the county, the array of county offices, the powers and duties of each, and their method of selection. No Washington county has exercised this option; however, there have been a few unsuccessful efforts to create a combined charter in Thurston, Spokane, and Skamania counties.
| County |
Year |
Form |
Elected Officials |
Appointed Officials |
| King |
1969 |
Council-Elected Executive |
Nine-member Council (P)
County Executive (P)
Assessor (P)
Prosecuting Attorney (P)
Sheriff (NP)
Director of Elections (NP) Auditor |
Auditor
County Administrative Officer
Treasury Operations Manager
Clerk
Medical Examiner |
| Whatcom |
1978 |
Council-Elected Executive |
Seven-member Council (NP)
County Executive (NP)
Assessor (NP)
Prosecuting Attorney (P)
Auditor (NP)
Sheriff (NP)
Treasurer (NP) Clerk |
Clerk
Deputy Administrator
Medical Examiner |
| Clallam |
1979 |
Commission-Appointed Administrator |
Three-member Commission (P)
Assessor (NP)
Prosecuting Attorney/Coroner (P)
Auditor (NP)
Sheriff (NP)
Treasurer (NP)
Community Development Director (NP) |
County Administrator
Clerk |
| Snohomish |
1980 |
Council-Elected Executive |
Five-member Council (P)
County Executive (P)
Prosecuting Attorney (P)
Assessor (NP)
Auditor (NP)
Sheriff (NP)
Clerk (NP)
Treasurer (NP) |
Medical Examiner |
| Pierce |
1981 |
Council-Elected Executive |
Seven-member Council (P)
County Executive (P)
Prosecuting Attorney (P)
Sheriff (P)
Assessor-Treasurer (P)
Auditor (P) |
Clerk
Medical Examiner |
| San Juan |
2005 |
Commission-Appointed Administrator |
Six-member Council (NP)
Prosecuting Attorney/Coroner (NP)
Assessor (NP)
Auditor (NP)
Clerk (NP)
Sheriff (NP)
Treasurer (NP) |
County Administrator |
Forms of Government in Charter Counties
Of the six home rule charter counties, four have adopted the council-elected executive form of government (King, Whatcom, Snohomish, and Pierce) and two (Clallam and San Juan) have adopted the commission/council-appointed administrator form.
Council-Elected Executive Form. In the council-elected executive form, the county executive is elected by the voters and serves as the head of the executive branch of government. The county council is the legislative branch of government, and it enacts ordinances, adopts the budget, and exercises oversight of the administration. Its role is similar to the role of a city council in a mayor-council city. The county executive has the power to veto legislation; however, a veto can be overridden by the council with a two-thirds majority vote or greater. The county executive proposes policies to the council, executes policies adopted by the council, prepares a budget, and has responsibility for general administration of the county. The county executive appoints and may dismiss department heads, generally with the consent of the council. The county executive's role is similar to the role of a mayor in a mayor-council city.
Commission/Council-Appointed Administrator Form. In this form, an elected body, be it a county commission or council, continues to have the policy-making, legislative, and budget-adoption functions. However, the council or commission delegates all or a portion of its administrative authority to an appointed professional administrator with the specific intent of enhancing administrative coordination and control functions. As an appointed official, the county administrator serves at the pleasure of the council or commission.
Council Size. Except for Clallam County, all of the charter counties (King, Pierce, San Juan, Snohomish, and Whatcom) have opted for larger councils. The size of the council ranges from five members in Snohomish County to nine in King County.
Partisan vs. Nonpartisan. Partisanship is mixed in the charter counties. The members of the legislative bodies in King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Clallam counties are elected on a partisan basis, while the council positions in Whatcom and San Juan Counties are elected on a nonpartisan basis. The county executives in King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties are elected on a partisan basis, while the Whatcom County Executive is elected on a nonpartisan basis. Most of the other independently-elected officials are nonpartisan, except for those in King and Pierce counties. All county elective offices in noncharter counties, other than judicial offices, are partisan offices.
Elected vs. Appointed Officials. A county charter can make any elected county official, except the prosecuting attorney and superior court judges, an appointive rather than an elective position. Most of the charter counties have done so only selectively. The office of county clerk has been made an appointive position in four of the six charter counties (King, Whatcom, Clallam, and Pierce). The office of medical examiner has also been made an appointive position in four of the six charter counties (King, Whatcom, Snohomish, and Pierce). Most other county officials, with a few exceptions, remain as elective positions. The assessor is an elected position in every county, although some make the position nonpartisan. The auditor is an elected officer in all but one county (King), where the auditor is appointed by the council. The sheriff is an elected position in all of the charter counties, although one county (Pierce) has made the position nonpartisan. After having an appointed sheriff for over 25 years in Pierce County, the voters recently decided to change back to electing their sheriff. Finally, the treasurer continues to be an elected position in all but one county (King). Pierce County has combined the assessor and treasurer into a single elected position.
Charter Reform Nationally
From 1911, when California became the first state to authorize the adoption of county "home rule" charters, to today, 37 states have approved some method for counties to change their form of government, either through the local drafting and adoption of a home rule charter or through the selection of certain predefined "optional" forms of government. Twenty-seven states (including Washington) provide for the adoption of home rule charters. Thirteen states (not including Washington) provide for the selection of predefined optional forms of county government. Three states (Idaho, Iowa, and Minnesota) offer both.
Nationally, according to the 2006 Municipal Yearbook published by the International City/County Management Association, of the 3,040 counties in the U.S., 2,189 operate under the commission form, 372 operate under the "council-manager/administrator" form, and 479 operate under the "council-elected executive" form. In spite of the availability of various options for reform, most counties nationally have either not considered them or have tried and found it too difficult to garner the necessary electoral support.
County Charter Experience in Washington
The experience in Washington State mirrors that in other states where more charter elections have failed than have passed. In fact, seven out of the eight charter adoption efforts initiated in Washington over the past decade have failed. Sixteen Washington counties in all have attempted freeholder elections and charter adoptions since this option was first made available in 1948: King, Snohomish, Kitsap, Cowlitz, San Juan, Island, Clallam, Pierce, Whatcom, Thurston, Ferry, Skamania, Clark, Spokane, Skagit, and Grant. Of the six counties that have successfully passed a charter, only two (Whatcom and Clallam) were able to do it on their first attempt, electing freeholders one year and adopting a charter the next year. The remaining charter counties (King, Snohomish, San Juan, and Pierce) all required multiple freeholder and charter elections to pass a charter. The award for persistence goes to San Juan County for successfully passing a charter on their third try in 2005, having begun their efforts over 30 years before, in 1972.
In addition to the six Washington counties that have adopted charters, several other counties have taken various steps in the process of electing freeholders, drafting proposed charters, and submitting charter proposals to the voters. Kitsap, Cowlitz, Thurston, and Clark Counties have each tried 3 separate times to elect freeholders and frame a charter only to fail each time. Three counties (Thurston, Spokane, and Skamania) have attempted city/county consolidation charters, each of which failed to gain voter approval. Three counties (Grant, Ferry, and Skagit) have failed even to elect freeholders in single attempts.
Why has it been so difficult for counties to bring about structural reform? Perhaps it is because there has been no widespread public perception of a need for comprehensive reform in the absence of a crisis. Nationally, and in some Washington counties, the most powerful catalyst for change in the past has been the occurrence of a major scandal which then served to galvanize support around a reform effort. Perhaps the perceived benefits of reform are not great enough to warrant the costs. The "costs" could include the need to tackle charter reform procedures that are cumbersome or not familiar and that have an uncertain outcome. There have also been no shortages of individuals or organizations that have opposed charter reform efforts. Opposition has come from labor unions who feel secure with the status quo. Incumbent elected officials who do not wish to have their positions become appointed have also opposed such efforts. Taxpayer groups often perceive that government reform will simply lead to bigger government and higher taxes.
The lack of greater reform activity may also be related to the nature of the constitutionally-provided process itself, which many have complained is too complex, cumbersome, and open-ended. The track record of county charter drafting and adoption efforts in Washington and elsewhere certainly does not offer a great deal of encouragement for would-be reformers.
State Legislative Study of County Governance Alternatives
Regardless of past difficulties, interest in county governance alternatives remains strong. Earlier this year, the state legislature directed the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (DCTED) to conduct a study of county financial health and governance alternatives for the governor and legislature. The legislature recognized that counties have limited organizational structure options compared to other states and Washington cities. Among the issues under examination are the potential efficiencies, cost savings and/or improved level of service opportunities that may be gained by allowing noncharter counties greater flexibility in altering their forms of governance, and the changes to constitutional or statutory law that would give counties the necessary authority to make the changes needed to optimize efficiency and/or improve service. If you would like to learn more about the study and its recommendations, the draft component reports are available on DCTED's website at: http://www.cted.wa.gov/site/1044/default.aspx.
|
