In news that will surprise few local political observers, the Snohomish County Council and County Executive Aaron Reardon can't came to agreement on an issue, even though Reardon's fellow Democrats control the Council 4-1.
At issue is the implementation of the option to move from annual to biennial budgeting, per a charter amendment [pdf], approved 55% - 45% by county voters in 2006.
The strongest case against the change seems to be complaints about the lack of communication and information flow between these two branches of county government. However, the two most vocal opponents, Councilmen John Koster and Dave Gossett opposed the biennial budgeting option in testimony to the Charter Review Commission prior to the amendment even appearing on the ballot.
Koster, an admirable advocate for fiscal conservatism, opposed it because he didn't believe it would save any money. A fair goal, but the real point of biennial budgeting - despite the errant Herald headline and lede - is to allow for more efficient use of staff time, greater emphasis on long-term planning, and thus more effective program delivery (at least in theory).
Gossett opposed the option because, well, he opposed essentially every change discussed by the Commission based on the apparent belief that County Government works just swimmingly as is. Between that and his well-known, simmering feud with Reardon his current position is no surprise.
Ironically, a shift to biennial budgeting would also theoretically allow the Council more time to engage in oversight of the Executive Branch. This could include more extensive use of the Performance Auditor, also moved via charter amendment [pdf] to be directly under the control of the Council.
In the end, if the Council can be adequately assured about the information it will receive from the Executive's office, biennial budgeting would be a prudent long-term policy to adopt.
**Disclosure: I served as co-Vice Chair of the County Charter Review Commission that placed the charter amendments discussed above, among others, on the ballot in 2006.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 09, 2008 02:00 PM | Email ThisHe'll have his hands tied, his voice muzzeled, and he'll be fed a steady diet of what makes mushrooms grow.
Snohomish County will get an empty set out of Reardon's chairship of that ST committee.
And no, Deanna Dawson won't help Snohomish County people because she's on that particular board.
In my experience, local councils don't play the partisan game. I imagine the Democrats have disagreements ammong themselves, especially when they are representing different sections of the county.
It's why I think county seats should be non-partisan seats, like the cities.
Remember, not everything is Democrate vs Republican.
-Dave
I'm not surprised at all, as regular readers of my commentary on county government will attest. The partisan identification issue simply amplifies how deep the conflict between Reardon and certain members of the Council is.
And yes, everything in local politics isn't Democrat v. Republican in many cases. That's obvious to any serious observer of local politics. That's part of the reason I was willing to so publicly support DJ Wilson while also preferring your opponent last November.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 9, 2008 08:31 PMYoung Aaron, about the age of my oldest, is a nice kid. Great "grip and grin" politician. Perhaps a control freak?
I mean, he and the council both are old tax and spenders, the gub'mint knows best about how to spend your money and run your life.
When someone figures it out, please clue in the Geez, will ya?
www.thespinmeister.blogspot.com
Posted by: The Geezer on March 10, 2008 07:10 PM