Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon, despite being a Democrat, has proved that he is certainly not a democrat, calling government of the people, by the people and for the people an "elected posse," and suggesting that life would be much easier if he could just be in charge of everything:
D.J. Wilson, an economics instructor at the college who interviewed Reardon, pointedly asked him what elected offices might be done away with, if possible.That's funny, Aaron--most of us call that elected posse "a democratically elected government." Does that ring a bell?Reardon spent most of the time alleging that the sheriff's office — Bart in particular — has been unprofessional.
"We need professional law enforcement," Reardon said. "We don't want an elected posse running the county."
Reardon also suggested the county treasurer and clerk of courts should be appointed positions.
Of course, the reason that Reardon spent most of his time railing on the sheriff is that Snohomish County Sheriff Rick Bart is running against him in 2007. Bart and Reardon have long clashed over budgeting priorities--Bart thinks that providing a well trained, well-equipped, high-morale police force is the most important function of local government, while Reardon prefers spending money on other things. I think the events in Louisiana have made it clear who is in the right in that argument.
What's really odd is that Reardon is trying to make Snohomish County government less accountable, just as King County is taking steps to become more accountable.
The only way Reardon will be able to enact this plan is by changing the County Charter--and the only way he can do that is by getting easily led people elected to the County Charter Review Commission, which will make changes to the Charter and then present them to the voters for approval. Three commissioners will be elected from each council district, and it is very important that we elect only commissioners who are committed to ensuring that our government is comprised of elected officials accountable to the public, not appointed bureaucrats.
Posted by Timothy Goddard at September 07, 2005 10:42 AM | Email ThisQuick question, shouldn't that read Reardon, not Bart?
Posted by: Mike H on September 7, 2005 11:04 AMWhat good is a County Executive when he isn't in charge of any of the departments? Elected prosecutor, sheriff, auditor, assessor, treasurer, clerk? What does the executive do? He can't set policy, but only allocate funds between the departments.
But, Snohomish County could take a lesson from King County and notice that the election department was controlled by the executive to a bad effect. Still, in Snohomish County, there were a lot of dead and illegal voters under the supervision of an elected auditor.
What's better?
Posted by: swatter on September 7, 2005 11:20 AMYou can see the result in ever increase wins for republicans. The dems are left to shenanigans like KCE to stay in power. Reardon know he is doomed to lose and is desperate.
Posted by: JCM on September 7, 2005 11:23 AMBut, this Bart fellow is an insulting JERK. I wouldn't be so quick to support that a-hole either. He cares about as much about families as Hillary Clinton does - which means Bart hates fathers.
Just take a look at his position on VAWA (which sends money to sheriff departments around the country and that is the reason they like it and Bart supports it). And, if you question him on it, he freaks out ... that's the same thing Democrats do when their pork is threatened.
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on September 7, 2005 11:33 AMSwatter-- I'm entertained that you're taking everything Reardon said about Bart at face value.
A) Law enforcement should always be a non-partisan position, taking partisan positions of any type should be grounds for dismissal or recall. This also needs to be applied to judges.
B) You should not be allowed to run for public office when you are a law enforcement official such as the sheriff of an entire county. Your job is *TO* important and you need to be focussing on your duties not on politics. If you want to run you need to resign.
And yeah it does sound to me like this is a case of "he's a democrat I'm gonna say bad things about him" more than anything actually meaningful.
Posted by: Chokai on September 7, 2005 11:41 AMAre we *NOT* supposed to take Reardon at his word? If not could you please provide additional evidence of why this should not be the case? So far all we have is basically he said/she said with no real facts. Reardon maybe ranting when he doesn't need to but asking where the money goes seems like an entirely reasonable question.
What I'd want to know is when that question was asked and what the response was. That would be something meaningful. It is Reardon's right and our expectation of him as County Exec that he will ensure that all money is being spent appropriately. Every department, even law enforcement needs to be reviewed.
Posted by: Chokai on September 7, 2005 11:56 AMIn theory you are correct, around you it is problematic. Appointed Law Enforcement Chiefs you get Norm (WTO) Stamper, and R. Gil (Mardi Gras) Kerlikowske. You get top brass more worried about offending someone than actually busting bad guys.
Posted by: JCM on September 7, 2005 11:57 AMOf course, that's not the point of the posting--the point is that Reardon wants to take power away from the voters of the county.
Posted by: Timothy on September 7, 2005 12:01 PMI was asked to run by the county GOP, but I have just missed eligiblity (you need to be a county resident for three years, I've been in Snohomish County for 2.5 years). Maybe next time (2015!). It's not a demanding position, it's only a year committment, but it's very important.
Posted by: pudge on September 7, 2005 12:16 PMThis Reardon/Bart thing is a disgrace and it has been going on in the press for some time. Reardon is a grandstander, but this article on Bart has shed a new light on the sheriff. And it isn't good.
Up to now, I was a Bart supporter, but you have raised doubts with this post.
Posted by: swatter on September 7, 2005 02:08 PMTypical Democrat - more control and centralized government!
Plus I hear that even the Democrats up there think Reardon is an incompetent jerk.
Maybe Koster will run against him. Or better yet, maybe Gary Nelson will.
Posted by: BMack on September 7, 2005 10:28 PMAs for Bart, I bought "lunch with the sheriff" at an auction to raise money for kids to go to camp. I haven't cashed it in yet, but it should be fun. In fact, I plan to let Sheriff Bart save his dime for the race against Reardon and pick up the lunch tab myself.
Posted by: Magnificent7 on September 7, 2005 11:53 PMIf he won't give enough information for the budget preparers to make a budget on because he is an 'elected' and has his 'posse', and he wants to set his own budget, then yes, I have doubts.
So, back at you now- if Bart does become executive and he does care for the public safety and needs more sheriffs, how does he rationalize that when the new sheriff comes in 'firing from the hips' and wants his own sets of laws (er, rules).
And I just read your last comment- why is it that I have to prove something that you posted and did not refute. You, the fact checker have the responsibility to debunk the articles you post.
BTW, I still don't know what to believe between the two "public servants" about how many sheriffs were going to be reduced- Bart's 15 or Reardon's none when budgets were proposed a year or two ago. Maybe that is why the executive wanted to see more financial data? Sound Politics readers must relate to that request?
On the other hand, when Reardon declared the County's new jail complete, but there was no money to run it and then he proceeded to try to sell a property or sales tax increase to maintain it, was asinine and didn't pass the smell test. And then, to find that a contract with the State corrections was already in the works to pay for the maintenance made the Council and Executive seem pretty dumb.
Send him a letter or email that is different than his opinion and see what the results will be. Hahaha, never seen a response like you get from him. He's a disgusting excuse of an elected official in my opinion.
Posted by: Sno_voter on September 8, 2005 10:03 AMsounds like you locked horns on the Bart side;no matter--agree or disagree with me, ANY candidate better be professional or i'll vote them out; my main concern is performance audits and treating your (employer) constituents respectfully;
that means: candidate--park your arrogance at the door; this is MY district you are in--and only by our voting graces;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on September 8, 2005 11:33 AM
sometimes it's hard to get the REAL low-down between the players; i've found the local community papers somewhat leftist and not too balanced or critical--but not surprised for that medium; SP is good as some inside "leaks" if you have them; keep it up; King Co. is steadily spinning into a crash dive; many do not want this repeated in SnoCo;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on September 8, 2005 11:50 AMIf I chose to vote on a person because of one thing one or the other says, then I am not exercising my privilege as a responsible voter. I'll take the total picture into account.
I had liked Bart's independence, so to speak, against the executive's cuts. But, I never realized he never gave the exec a full deck to base his cuts on. Serious flaw.
Posted by: swatter on September 9, 2005 07:54 AMI'd admire the papers if they did; it would also help the voters in general; we're smart enough to judge for ourselves; so---have at it--grill the candidates--and not timidly--here is your chance, papers--
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on September 9, 2005 11:10 AM