Thurston may do better with a county charter

A small but civic-minded group calling itself Better Thurston isn’t giving up on making major changes to the structure of Thurston County government. This could include a larger county commission, two new commissioner districts, the people’s right of initiative for local issues, and even changing which county offices are elected and which are appointed.

All would be subject to voter approval, just as with previous charter efforts.

We won’t say here what exact form of government makes the most sense or whether Thurston County’s commission should be five or seven members large, compared to three elected members today. Or whether an elected county executive position should be created to serve as the top administrator or manager — as King, Pierce and other counties have opted to do over the decades.

But it’s been more than two decades since county voters rejected a proposed merger of county and city governments. It’s been 30 years since voters considered whether to draft a home-rule charter, which seven counties have with its expanded local powers. As growth has pushed Thurston County’s population past the quarter-million mark it’s fair to consider again what’s appropriate in this ever more complicated world we live in.

A larger commission or council allows more parties to participate in policy decisions. Today there is a question whether rural interests are adequately represented on our commission, which has three north-south districts with enough urban dwellers in each that the rural voice may be drowned out in elections.

In the recent fight over pocket gophers in south county areas, it’s clear that many rural residents don’t feel they are adequately represented. We mention the pocket gopher for illustration — not as the definitive reason to switch to a larger body. There is ample reason to protect endangered species, but residents who think decisions are made on their behalf by officials who sit beyond their control eventually lose faith in the governmental process.

State Rep. Sam Hunt, D-Olympia, recently put some residents in a tizzy because his amendment to a bill affecting Spokane County would have forced Thurston County to expand its commission in 2018.

Such a larger commission is a good idea in the long run. But voters need to be involved in a decision this significant. Hunt’s amendment would not have accomplished other goals of the charter movement, according to Nicole Hill, a Tumwater City Council member and a leader in the Better Thurston movement.

Hill and other Better Thurston leaders met with our editorial board last week in the wake of Hunt’s maneuver. The others were county Treasurer Shawn Myers, Port of Olympia Commissioner Bill McGregor, and Lacey Fire District 3 Commissioner Tom Nelson.

Their group, which has active support from retired secretary of state and county auditor Sam Reed, covers the gamut of political views. All appear committed to finding ways to make government work better.

Voters in Thurston County have rejected home-rule charter movements in the past — the first in 1978-79 and again in 1986.

In late 2014, the three-member Thurston County Board of Commissioners rejected a request from Better Thurston to put the issue on the ballot again. Commissioners cited a lack of space for extra commissioners in the County Courthouse and costs. Those are valid concerns.

But adding commissioners does not have to mean extra payroll. Nelson and McGregor noted that Clark County expanded its council but reduced pay. Clark council members’ pay was cut in half because a county manager took over administration and council members now deal strictly with policy.

Better Thurston since followed up with a petition drive that collected about 1,000 signatures. Rather than carry on that signature drive, which McGregor thinks they could accomplish, Better Thurston is moving to a new focus that may result in better public education. They plan to spur public debate by asking candidates for county commission this fall how they view this important issue.

That is a constructive approach and we hope it draws more voters into the discussion. Elections should be about making government work better to meet communities’ needs. A broader discussion about the adequacy of structures created more than 100 years ago should be helpful.

Any move for a charter would start in 2017 at the earliest with a countywide election asking voters if they want to consider one; voters also would elect freeholders to craft a proposal. Voters would weigh in a second time in 2018, at the soonest, on whatever charter is proposed.

That’s a long way off.

In the meantime, candidate filing week gets under way in mid-May. We’ll be watching to see how commission candidates stand on this issue, among others, as we decide who to support in November.

This story was originally published March 5, 2016 at 4:01 PM with the headline "Thurston may do better with a county charter."