Click here to skip to main content.
scenic picture from Washington state
MRSC PUBLICATIONS › NEWS › Municipal Research News - September 1995
 

Note: Some of the information on this archival Web page may no longer be current.

Municipal Research News

Resources for Washington's Cities and Towns
September 1995

Articles

Election Campaigns Prohibition Against Use of Public Facilities

State law prohibits the use of the facilities of a public office to support or oppose a ballot measure or an election campaign for public office. This prohibition, contained in RCW 42.17.130, was part of Initiative 276, adopted by the voters in November 1972 and commonly known as the Public Disclosure Law. Although it comes into play for cities at any election where there is a ballot measure or a campaign for public office, this prohibition has added significance this fall with the appearance on the statewide ballot of Referendum 48; the referendum that will determine the fate of Initiative 164, the property rights initiative. Seldom, if ever, has a ballot proposition appeared that has such potential significance for cities or has generated as much controversy as this measure. Therefore, MRSC felt it would be beneficial to review the prohibition in RCW 42.17.130 as it would apply to Referendum 48, as well as to the other campaigns in this municipal election year.

When Does the Prohibition Apply?

With respect to a ballot measure, the prohibition applies as soon as the measure is filed with the appropriate election officer prior to it being circulated for signatures. Thus, the prohibition applies before a measure even qualifies, if it ever does, for the ballot. With respect to a campaign for elective office, it applies once an individual becomes a candidate for elective office, which may occur before the time period for filing for office.

What Are the "Facilities of a Public Office"?

The statute defines these facilities to include, but not be limited to, "use of stationery, postage, machines, and equipment, use of employees of the office or agency during working hours, vehicles, office space, publications of the office or agency, and clientele lists of persons served by the office or agency." This definition is quite broad, and it includes an employee's or official's work time, as well as the city's or town's physical facilities, equipment, and supplies.

Are There Any Exceptions to This Prohibition?

Yes, the statute provides three specific exceptions. Two exceptions apply only to elected officials and allow (1) an elected legislative body, such as a city or town council, to vote to support or oppose a ballot proposition, if certain procedural requirements are met, and (2) to make statements in support of or opposition to a ballot proposition at an open press conference or in response to a specific inquiry. If a city or town council plans to vote to take a collective position on a ballot proposition, the notice of the meeting at which the vote will be taken must include the title and number of the ballot proposition, and councilmembers and members of the public must be provided an approximately equal opportunity to express an opposing view. Referendum 48 and Initiative 164 have generated a number of council resolutions permitted under this exception.

The third statutory exception allows activities "which are part of the normal and regular conduct ofthe office or agency." Under this exception, a city or town may, for example, make its facilities available on a nondiscriminatory, equal access basis for a candidates' forum or a neutral public forum on a ballot measure.

Also, under this third exception, a city or town could make an "objective and fair" presentation of facts concerning a ballot measure. Neutral "fact sheets" can be an effective way to respond to citizen questions about a measure, particularly a complex one. They can also prove helpful for voters to evaluate the potential financial impact of a ballot measure, both personally and to the local government. However, care must be exercised to ensure that any such fact sheet comes across as fair and objective. The style, tenor, and timing of a presumably factual publication will certainly have an influence on its perceived fairness and objectivity. As discussed below, the Public Disclosure Commission staff can be of assistance in evaluating the legality of a purported factual statement, in advance of its publication.

Examples of When the Prohibition Applies

Here are some examples of activities to which the prohibition would apply:

  • City or town officers or employees campaigning or preparing campaign materials during working hours

  • Using city or town supplies or equipment, such as a copying machine, computer, word processor, or telephone, to prepare or distribute materials for election or ballot measure campaigns

  • Non-elected boards or commissions, such as the planning commission, taking a collective position on a ballot measure

  • A city council voting to endorse a candidate for elective office

  • Using city or town vehicles to carry or display campaign materials

  • Using public property for campaign purposes, except in the context of a neutral forum

Examples of When the Prohibition Does Not Apply

In addition to the statutory exceptions identified above, the prohibition would not apply in the following examples:

  • A public officer or employee, on his or her own time (outside working hours or on leave), campaigning for or against a candidate for elective office or a ballot measure

  • A city officer or employee writing, on his or her own time, a letter to the editor of the local newspaper expressing a position on a ballot measure or a candidate for elective office and identifying his or her position with the city (there should, however, be no implication in theletter that the writer is expressing a position on behalf of the city)

  • Bumper stickers on the private vehicles of city officers or employees that may be parked on public property

  • Wearing a campaign button, even if during working hours, although a city or town may adopt policies prohibiting this in certain circumstances

  • Researching the impact of a ballot proposition for the purpose of gathering facts, where it is not designed to support or oppose the measure and it is part of the normal and regular conduct of the city

  • Providing public records, such as lists of individuals or businesses, even if the records will be used in support or opposition to a candidate or measure, as long as the record is not exempt from disclosure under state law

  • City or town officials or employees actively promoting, including soliciting petition signatures, for a petition method annexation, since no election is involved

The Prohibition and Referendum 48

Referendum 48, which asks voters whether Initiative 164 should become law, presents some special problems concerning this prohibition. Clearly, most city and town officials appear to oppose this initiative. Nevertheless, many cities and towns, as a practical matter, have had to begin addressing how they might comply with the initiative, should it become law in December (30 days after the election). As part of that process, many have also addressed the potential impacts the initiative may have on the city's or town's financial resources and on the way land uses are regulated.

We recommend that city and town officials and employees be mindful of the need to be fair and objective concerning material they develop using city facilities concerning the referendum/initiative. But, officials and employees should feel free, on their own time, to express their opinions on it and to work actively for its approval or rejection.

Role of the Public Disclosure Commission

Initiative 276 created the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) to interpret and enforce the public disclosure law. The PDC consists of five part-time commissioners appointed by the governor, an executive director, and a small staff. In addition to issuing formal declaratory rulings, the PDC is available, through its staff, to respond to questions concerning the Public Disclosure Law and to provide informal opinions. Incidentally, the prohibition in RCW 42.17.130 generates more questions and work for the PDC than the rest of the Public Disclosure Law combined.

The PDC staff encourages you to ask questions in advance of a proposed activity that may implicate the prohibition on using public facilities and even to send or fax materials, such as fact sheets, for the staff to review prior to a city's distribution of the material. You may contact the PDC at (360)753-1111; fax (360) 753-1112.

The MRSC legal consultant staff is also available to respond to questions regarding this prohibition on the use of public facilities.

by Bob Meinig, Legal Consultant

News from the Board

Municipal Research & Services Center is pleased to announce the addition of Allen B. Locke and Tom Trulove to our board of directors. Al Locke has had many years of experience in the public sector. He has held numerous city manager positions, as well as several interim city manager positions. His past city management positions have been with the cities of Kirkland, Mill Creek, Federal Way, and Woodinville. His most recent position was serving as interim city manager for the city of Bothell. Tom Trulove has been Professor of Economics at Eastern Washington University since 1969. He was the mayor of the city of Cheney from 1978 until 1986. He has had several governmental appointments over the years, including the Association of Washington Cities Board of Directors where he served as president from 1984 to 1985. MRSC is very pleased and fortunate to have Mr. Locke and Mr. Trulove serving as members of our board.

Retiring from our board are Warren A. Bishop, Betty Drumheller, Al Koetje, G. Eldon Marshall, and David Stevens. Warren Bishop has been affiliated with MRSC for many years. He started as a research associate for the Bureau of Governmental Research (which later became Municipal Research & Services Center) in 1951. He was on the Edmonds city council and then served under Governor Rosellini in 1957. He was the state budget director from 1959 until 1965 when he went to work for Washington State University. He was on the MRSC board from 1975 to 1995 and served as board president from 1977 until 1992. Betty Drumheller has been active in government affairs since the 1960s. She was appointed to the Municipal Research Council in 1971. She was district assistant for Senator Magnuson from 1975 to 1979, and served eight years on the Democratic National Committee. She was a MRSC board member from 1975 until 1995. Al Koetje has been involved in government for several years. He served as an Oak Harbor city councilmember before becoming mayor in 1971. He is a past president of the Association of Washington Cities. He became a MRSC board member in 1988, serving until 1995. G. Eldon Marshall has also been involved in government for a number of years. He was city supervisor of Olympia from 1954 until 1982 and served as president of both Washington City Management Association and Washington Finance Officers Association. He was on our board from 1983 to 1995. David Stevens also has long been affiliated with Municipal Research. He joined the Bureau of Governmental Research as a research specialist in 1957. He went on to become assistant city manager of Tacoma. He has been involved in several energy and environmental programs, serving under Governor Evans and Governor Spellman. He was on our board of directors from 1980 until 1995, serving as secretary from 1993 to 1994 and vice president from 1994 to 1995.

Municipal Research & Services Center appreciates the time and effort these people have given andstill are giving to municipal government in the state of Washington. We thank them for their service and applaud them for their dedication.

Gasohol Exemption Repeal Upheld

On August 10, 1995, the Washington State Supreme Court rendered a verdict in Western Petroleum Importers Inc. v. Friedt, Case No. 62771-1. The court decided that the Legislature did not violate Initiative 601 when it repealed the tax exemption for gasohol during the 1994 legislative session. The plaintiffs had argued that repealing an exemption was the same thing as raising tax rates, and the latter is subject to approval of the voters under Initiative 601.

As noted on page 15 of Budget Suggestions for 1996, this ruling will raise the 1996 per capita gas tax estimates in the state-shared revenue table on page 20. The estimate for the unrestricted portion of the gas tax is now $15.47. The estimate for the restricted portion is $7.23.

DOE Reports

Less Government Red Tape When Working Near Water

Anyone planning to work in or near water will find applying for permits a lot easier, thanks to several state agencies. Working with cities and counties, Washington State departments of Ecology and Fish and Wildlife, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have combined six applications for aquatic permits into one. A statewide test of the new Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) is now underway.

JARPA will replace separate individual applications for:

  • Shoreline permits, Floodplain, and Critical Areas permits used by local governments;

  • Hydraulic Project Approvals from the Department of Fish and Wildlife;

  • Wetlands permits from the Corps of Engineers under Section 404 and 10 of the Clean Water Act;

  • Water Quality Certification from Ecology; and

  • Short-term Water Quality Modifications from Ecology.

This application was designed to make it easier for people to "do the right thing for the environment." Applicants will also save time in filling out paperwork, and may avoid delays because all permit reviews will begin at the same time.

Several governmental agencies, including cities and counties, tested the application for six months,helping to improve and refine it. This refinement process will continue as needed.

Thus far, the response from local governments has been very positive. If you would like further information about JARPA, please contact Doug Pineo (509) 456-2796, Sandi Manning (360) 407-6912, or Tamie Kellogg (360) 407-6158.

State Ferries and Ecology Join Forces in Protecting the Environment

The State Ferry System, with the help of Washington Department of Ecology, has adopted a new pollution prevention strategy that will both protect the environment and save taxpayers $535,000 a year. The prevention strategy includes development of a new product procurement process and recommendations for changes in management practices.

The new product procurement process was developed for items used in cleaning and general maintenance of state ferries. Under the new system, a vendor must put his product through a "potential hazard test". Disposal costs of tested materials are paid by the vendor.

The ferry system has narrowed down its product procurement list from some 300 products to 30 -ensuring all operation centers will use the least hazardous products to perform tasks.

Changes in management practices at the system's Eagle Harbor facility, will result in a 35,000 pound reduction in hazardous waste generated over the next five years. The ferry system will save $535,000 a year as a result of changes in purchasing, use and reduced disposal costs. Improved management practices include:

  • Switching to water-based paint for some interior and exterior coating applications

  • Recycling oil filters and spent paint thinners

  • Education and training on appropriate hazardous substance/waste management practices

The ferry system and Ecology staff have provided information on the successful pollution prevention effort to transportation facilities in Alaska and British Columbia, as well as to Navy and Coast Guard facilities.

If you are interested in obtaining more information about this pollution prevention strategy and how it could be used in your city, contact Dave Williams (206) 649-7071 or Tamie Kellogg (360) 407-6158 at the Office of Education and Public Information, Department of Ecology.

Since election time is here, it seems appropriate to deal with some election questions we are often asked.

Ask MRSC

Elections - After an election is held to fill the unexpired term of a mayor or councilmember in a code city, when does the newly elected mayor or councilmember take office?

State law provides that the person elected to fill an unexpired term of mayor or councilmember will assume office as soon as the election results are certified and the individual is qualified in accordance with RCW 29.01.135.

"Qualified" refers to the requirement that the election be properly certified, and that the oath or affirmation be taken by the newly elected official.

Elections - Is a person who has been convicted of a felony, permanently barred from holding elective office?

No. See Chapter 9.96 RCW, Restoration of Civil Rights.

Elections - What constitutes certification of the election of a mayor or councilmember?

RCW 29.27.100 relates to certification of elections. This statute indicates that immediately after the ascertainment of the result of an election or an office to be filled in a city, the county auditor shall notify the person elected and upon his/her demand issue a certificate of his/her election.

Oath of Office - When must a city councilmember take the oath of office?

There is no specified time when the oath of office must be taken. It can be taken prior to the beginning of the councilmember's term, as provided in RCW 29.04.170 (3). That statute provides that the oath of office may be taken either:

(a) up to ten days prior to the scheduled date of assuming office, or

(b) at the last regular meeting of the governing body of the applicable county, city, town, or special district held before the winner is to assume office.

Many cities administer the oath of office at the first council meeting in January.

Oath of Office - Is there a statute concerning the required wording for an oath of office?

There is no statute outlining the required wording for an oath of office. Most cities seem to use wording similar to the following:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington, and all valid local ordinances, and that I will faithfully and impartially perform and discharge the duties of the office of _____ according to law,to the best of my ability. [So help me God. (Optional)]

________________________________
Signature of Elected/Appointed Official

Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____ day of _____, 19_____.

________________________________
Signature of Person Administering Oath

Oath of Office - Who may administer the oath of office?

RCW 29.01.135 (4) provides that an oath or affirmation "shall be administered and certified by an officer or notary public who administers oaths, without charge therefore." We have previously advised that an oath of office be administered by one of the following persons: a notary public, a judge, a justice of the peace, a city clerk or a mayor.

Other persons authorized to administer an oath by statute include: a court commissioner, a court of justice, every judicial officer, every court judge, clerk of the court, justice of the peace, a clerk of a sEcond class city, the mayor of a town, the clerk of a town, a county auditor or deputy auditor, a county legislative authority, and a notary public.

Nothing under state law requires that the swearing in of an official be done in an open, regular council meeting.

The following are summaries of recent inquiries answered by MRSC consultants.

Disclosure - Should salaries of public employees be disclosed upon request?

Yes. Salaries of all public officials and public employees must be disclosed. Personal information regarding public employees, such as home address, phone number, social security number, etc., should not be disclosed.

Forms of Government - What are the forms of government selected by cities that have incorporated over the last 30 years?

Of the 12 cities that have voted to incorporate in Washington since 1965, 11 have opted for the council-manager form of government:

  • Ocean Shores (1970)
  • Mill Creek (1983)
  • SeaTac (1990)
  • Federal Way (1990)
  • Burien (1993)
  • Woodinville (1993)
  • Newcastle (1994)
  • Shoreline (voted to incorporate in 1995)
  • University Place (voted to incorporate in 1995)
  • Lakewood (voted to incorporate in 1995)
  • Edgewood (voted to incorporate in 1995)
  • Lacey incorporated as a mayor-council city in 1966, but then voted to change to the council-manager form in 1973.

Growth Management - Does the Growth Management Act (GMA) require concurrency for sewer and water?

The word "concurrency" appears in RCW 36.70A.070 which clearly requires concurrency for arterials and transit. There is no specific requirement that other types of facilities be provided "concurrent" with development elsewhere in GMA. However, the goal statement in RCW 36.70A.020 suggests that adequate public facilities requirements for other types of public facilities and services may be appropriate. Also, RCW 58.17.110 requires that "adequate provision" be made for a long list of public facilities and services including potable water and waste disposal. Most cities appear to be specifically including transportation-related facilities, which are most clearly addressed by GMA, in their concurrency provisions. Clark County and Tacoma are two examples of Washington jurisdictions that are considering requiring concurrency for water, sewer and stormwater facilities. There are also many out-of-state examples of communities that require that a range of facilities be adequate at the time of development, including Florida and Maryland cities.

Growth Management - Does ESHB 1724 require that growth management plans be updated every five years?

ESHB 1724 does not change the Growth Management Act (GMA) requirement that counties and cities review urban growth areas and densities permitted within the urban growth areas every ten years. Section 102, ESHB 1724 requires that cities and counties planning under GMA include a process in their development regulations to docket and consider suggested plan amendments from any interested person at least on an annual basis. RCW 36.70A.130 still states that amendments to the comprehensive plan cannot be considered more than once a year. However, ESHB 1724 adds several exceptions to this provision. Amendments may now be considered more than once a year at the initiation of a subarea plan or with the adoption or amendment of a shoreline master program. Cities or counties may also amend plans whenever an emergency exists or to resolve an appeal of a comprehensive plan filed with a growth management hearings board or a court.

Mayor Selection - Is there a procedure required for selection of mayor in a council-manager code city?

No. There is no specific procedure required for the election of a mayor in a council-manager code city. RCW 35A.13.030 states that "biennially at the first meeting of the new council the members thereof shall choose a chairman from among their number. . ." The city could adopt its own specific procedures for this selection or could simply choose a chairman/mayor by majority vote.

Model Traffic Ordinance - Will the new provisions concerning DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) implied consent warnings be incorporated into the MTO (Model Traffic Ordinance) prior to September 1 so that cities do not have to pass ordinances adopting those provisions?

The Department of Licensing is adopting emergency rules incorporating the new implied consent warnings into the MTO prior to September 1. The emergency rules will also incorporate the new DWI license suspension/revocation legislation. Cities do not need to pass separate ordinances to make sure that the new legislation is in effect in their cities, as long as the city has previously adopted the MTO.

Parental Rights - Does a parent have a right to a copy of the police report concerning juvenile offenses committed by his/her juvenile child?

No. The statutes governing privacy of juvenile records are found in Chapter 13.50 RCW. Though parents have no right to copies of the police reports, a parent may file a motion with the juvenile court requesting access to the police report (see RCW 13.50.010 (5)). Most non-offense juvenile records can be disclosed to parents (see RCW 13.50.100 (4)). The specific reference to parents in the latter statute supports the view that omission of a specific reference to parents in the former statute was not an oversight.

Towing - Does the city have authority to tow vehicles parked in the fire lane on school district property?

In order to tow vehicles in such situations, the city needs to have an ordinance in effect which contains various provisions spelled out in RCW 46.55.240.

Traffic Control - What rules apply to stopping at non-operating traffic signals?

There are no state statutes or references that we can locate that require a full stop at non-operating traffic signals. The state statutes are silent on this issue.

References exist for stop signs, but not for non-operating signals. RCW 46.61.180 references uncontrolled intersections.

McQuillin in Section 53.42 states, in part, "A city has a duty to maintain devices installed for traffic control so as not to create traps or undue dangers. Nevertheless, a damaged or obstructed stop sign at streets of equal dignity has been held not to constitute a trap which might delude a motorist into thinking he has an unqualified right-of-way, the rule in such cases being that the intersection then becomes an uncontrolled intersection such that approaching motorists are under a duty to ascertain before entering whether a crossing can be safely made."

Water Allocation - Some cities clearly have shortages of future water supplies. What have they done to establish water priority plans for proposed new construction?

We know of two cities that have adopted water allocation priority plans.

The City of Enumclaw adopted a plan to hold an annual lottery of their remaining water permits. The first application of the Enumclaw plan was immediately challenged. That plan is presently in the courts.

A different approach was adopted by the City of West Richland. They require any new developments to supply their own water source along with the streets, sidewalks, and other utilities.

West Richland Resolution No. 27-94 provides in part:

The proponent of the subdivision or binding site plan or the commercial or industrial user provide to the City a source of potable water or a combination of potable water and irrigation water sufficient in capacity to provide for all the anticipated usage within the proposed subdivision, binding site plan or commercial or industrial development.

Opening for Public Works Consultant

MRSC will be considering candidates for the position of Public Works Consultant to replace Roy Peterson, who will be retiring in November. The general duties of our Public Works Consultant are to provide technical assistance to municipalities in the fields of public works, utilities, planning, and municipal policy through telephone, facsimile, and written response to inquiries from elected officials and staff. Particular emphasis is on contracting for professional and construction services, project management, financing of public works projects, local improvement district formation, utility operations, code administration and enforcement, and the application of state law as it applies to public works projects. The Public Works Consultant prepares articles for publication, and presents papers of interest at seminars and conferences in the subject fields.

MRSC will be developing specific qualifications for this position within the next month. If you feel you are qualified for and are interested in this position, send a letter of interest and resume to:

Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington
2601 Fourth Ave, Ste 800
Seattle, WA 98121-1280

Resource Sharing - Information Partnership Program

The July 26, 1995, Information Partnership request for city documents and reports specifically mentioned surveys_both the questionnaire and results_as well as other material that would encourage "restoration of trust" in government and its services (such as newsletters, brochures, open meeting rules). The items received from this request are arriving daily at MRSC's new downtown location. A representative sample of public relations and survey forms are listed below as being of interest to any city or town that may be considering production and distribution of similar publications.

Brochures and Newsletters

City Currents
Sample copy, July 1995 (vol. 6 no.3), with articles on the city's mission statement, new police station, third runway at SeaTac; includes "Water Surface News," Summer 1995, no. 7 (1 p). 7 p. newsletter. Des Moines. 7/95. PR 3.5000.

City of Milton Weekly News
Lists meetings, events, activities, and brief news items on city related activities. 2 p. Milton. 8/21/95. PR 3.5000.

Palouse City Newsletter
Brochure style newsletter with dates and times of various services, meeting schedules, and information on city committees such as annexation, streets and sidewalks. Sample copies of Winter 1994, Spring 1995, and June 1995. 2 p. Palouse. 6/95. PR 3.5000.

Welcome to a Meeting of Your City Council
Describes city government and functions in an attractive brochure format. Encourages citizen participation, provides meeting information and city services telephone numbers. 2 p. trifold brochure. Tumwater. no date. PR 3.2000.

It's Our Water, It's Our Responsibility
Introduces Tumwater's wellhead program with well-illustrated diagrams showing how citizens can avoid contaminating ground water. 4 p., double-trifold. Tumwater. no date. PR 7.2700.

Pioneer
Citizen information newsletter issued monthly. Received sample copies of May, June, and July 1995(vol. VIII, nos. 5, 6, and 7). Various pagings. Tumwater. 7/95. PR 3.5000.

Surveys

Citizen Evaluation Card
Postcard preaddressed to the Mayor with a brief message requesting an evaluation of the city's response to a citizens' inquiry, with ten ratings to be circled numbered from 1 (very displeased) through 9 (very pleased), and provides space for comments. 3.5" x 5.5" card. Camas. no date. G 9.3200.

1995 Colfax Citizen Survey: Final Report
Survey report by the City Administrator with statistical analyses of attitudes on crime, safety, quality of life, streets, sidewalks, parks, paths, and utilities. Includes copy of the introductory letter and survey, survey comments, and map of the city's six areas. Unpaged & various pagings. Colfax. 7/25/95. G 9.3200

Parks and Recreation Questionnaire
Request citizen comments on transfer of 3 parks from the county to the city and on three levels of park improvements and recreation programming based on 0.8%, 1.25%, and 2% utility tax increases. Includes map. 4 p. Des Moines. 1993. P 1.4000.

Des Moines Municipal Court Quality Questionnaire
Opinion survey of services and rating (excellent, good, average, poor) of the judge and other court personnel. 2 p. Des Moines. no date. PS 2.4000.

Police Department Computer Bulletin Board
Excerpt from the city council minutes of June 22, 1995, citing community use statistics of the electronic bulletin board service, e.g., 989 different users during the past year. 1 p. Des Moines. 6/22/95. PS 6.3000.

We're Listening!
Survey form with the subtitle, "We want to know how we are doing: Compliments? Complaints? Suggestions? Questions?" Issued by the city manager; includes directory of city services with names and telephone numbers. 2 p. folded. Des Moines. no date. G 9.3200.

Questionnaire Citizens: Town Assessment
Seeks opinions on citizen values, how the town appears, use of public areas, and attitudes about future growth and change. 3 p. Shelton. no date. G 9.3200.

The above documents and publications may be obtained by employees and officials of Washington cities and towns by contacting the MRSC Library at 1-800-933-6772 or by sending a fax or e-mail request.

by Paul J. Steere, Information Partnership Coordinator

MRSC Online News

As some of you know, we have come up against several obstacles in implementing the new Windows interface to MRSC Online. The primary obstacle was the delay in receiving the new file server for our computer network. We received the new server at the end of August, and we are now using the old file server as the new BBS server.

If you have not already requested the software needed to access the Windows interface, you may do so now by calling the MRSC receptionist. For those of you who will be attending the fall conference of the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the American Planning Association in Bellevue on October 10, we will be providing hands-on training. Call the MRSC receptionist to arrange a time.

by Fred Ward
Information Systems Specialist

New Acquistions

Board & Administrator's Guide to Better Board Meetings, Aspen Publishers, Inc., Akron, Iowa, 1994, 44 p., [PR 2.3000 B655 1994].

Code Enforcement: A Comprehensive Approach, by Joseph M. Schilling and James B. Hare, Point Arena, CA, Solano Press, 1994, 246 p., [PL 2.1170 C655 1994].

Dog Law, by Mary Randolph, 2nd ed., Berkeley, CA, NOLO Press, 1994, 1 v., (Cover title: Dog Law: A Legal Guide for Dog Owners and Their Neighbors), [LR 8.3500 D645 1994].

The Parking Handbook for Small Communities, by John D. Edwards, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1st ed., Washington, D.C., 1994, 107 p., [T 3.9000 P357 1994 c.1].

Goal Setting in Local Government, by Robert Geen, International City/County Management Association, Washington, D.C., Apr 1995, 12 p., MIS Report vol. 27 no. 4, [G 9.2100 MIS27:4**].

GIS World Sourcebook 1995: Geographic Information System Technology, GIS World, Inc., Fort Collins, Colo, 1994, 681 p., [PW 5.1000 G555 1995].

Historic Preservation [Issues & Options], National League of Cities, Washington, D.C., May 1995, 16 p., vol. 3, no. 4, [PL 10.3000 I8 v.3:4**].

Washington Foundation Directory: How to Get Your Slice of the Pie, by Mardell Moore and Charna Klein, 2d., Seattle, Consultant Services Northwest, 1994, 398 p. [F 5.3300 W35 1994].

How to Access the Government's Electronic Bulletin Boards, by Bruce Maxwell, Washington, D.C., Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1995, 340 p. [IS 7.0000 H655 1995].

Public Safety: Service Delivery Choices, by Evelina R. Moulder and Gwen Hall, Washington, D.C., ICMA, 1995, 60 pp., Special data issue no. 4, item no. 41053, [F 8.7000 P875 1995 c.1].

Emergency Preparedness: Crisis Management for Local Leaders, by Ruth L. Campbell and Nathan Ridnouer, National League of Cities, Washington, D.C., June 1995, 16 p., (Issues & Options), vol. 3, no. 5, [PS 1.0000 I8 v.3:5**].

Neighborhood Empowerment, National League of Cities, Washington, D.C., Apr 1995, 16 p. (Issues & Options), vol. 3, no. 3, [G 1.6200 I8 v.3:3**]

Sharing Geographic Information, edited by Harlan J. Onsrud and Gerard Rushton, New Brunswick, N.J., Center for Urban Policy Research, 1995, 510 p., [PW 5.1000 S425 1995].

The Use of Performance Measures in City and County Budgets, by Patricia Tigue and Dennis Strachota, Chicago, Ill., 1994, 154 p., (Research Report/Government Finance Officers Association), [F 3.6300 U855 1994].

Managing for Results: Performance Measures in Government; Conference proceedings, October 27-29, 1993, Austin, Texas, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas, 1994, 180 p., [G 9.7000 M355 1994].

Quality Management Today: What Local Governments Need to Know, edited by Jonathan P. West, Washington, D.C., International City Management Association, 1995, 242p., (Practical Management Series), [G 9.1000 Q356 1995].

WANTED: Ordinances On Disk

MRSC's online bulletin board service includes full text ordinances from Washington cities and towns. This allows users to print or copy to a file instantly instead of waiting for MRSC to send copies by mail. Our goal is to have all the new ordinances in the Ordinance Summary Database downloadable at your computer.

You can help us with this service by sending MRSC copies of ordinances on disk, preferably on a regular basis (we can return the disks). Our choice of formats to receive would be WordPerfect or ASCII. You may also send ordinances via the MRSC Online bulletin board.

Please address any questions, comments, or suggestions to Lynne De Merritt, Library Manager, or Fred Ward, Information Systems Specialist, at (206) 625-1300 or 1-800-933-6772.