King County and the Top 1

King County has five County Council seats up for election this year. There are five incumbents running for re-election in this odd-numbered year election. Four of the five incumbents are running in uncontested elections. Krist Novoselic, Chair of FairVote, observes that the members of the King County Council have achieved incumbent nirvana, the Top 1.

The incumbent members of the Pierce County Council must surely view this with envy. They have sponsored a series of charter amendments which will have the net effect of moving Pierce County towards this incumbent nirvana. Voters are not confused by multiple candidates. The results are known before the election occurs. Incumbents stay in office as long as they want without competition.

Reject all three charter amendments. No rigging the system.

Voters want choices. The Top 1 is not democracy.

King County to consider Ranked Choice Voting

King County resident Joe Szwaja writes about the advantages of Ranked Choice Voting for King County in the Seattle Times.

"Mix together eight candidates, a low-turnout summer primary, and rules that send the top two candidates to the general, no matter what. Result? A million-dollar-plus bill for holding two elections to achieve what we could accomplish with one.

Voters had to awkwardly balance the desire to vote for their favorite candidate with a guess as to whether he or she could advance to the general or whether the vote would be split among similar candidates and actually help the wrong side.

And the system amplifies big-donor influence, since two elections also increase the time candidates must spend raising money for two elections.

This is our election recipe here in King County and in the city of Seattle as well.

Fortunately, there's a cheap, inclusive and democratic alternative used internationally and now in Pierce County. It's ranked choice voting (RCV), also known as instant runoff voting."

King County August 2009 Primary

King County's bill for its share of the August primary costs will likely exceed $1 million again this year. There are even fewer jurisdictions participating in the primary this year than in 2007. Thus, there are fewer jurisdictions over which to spread the cost. By adopting Ranked Choice Voting, King County can eliminate this cost to their taxpayers for years to come. In addition, by having RCV capability in place, this would allow entities such as the Port of Seattle to save money as well.

The August 2009 primary in King County will feature races for county level offices, the Port of Seattle, 15 city councils, 4 school districts and 2 fire districts. (The Port races feature candidates Rob Holland, David Doud, Al Yuen, Juan Paraiso, Max Vekich, Tom Albro, and Robert Walker.) This is a total of 23 jurisdictions as compared to 35 in the 2007 primary.

Since there are fewer entities sharing the costs this year, King County will be getting a higher allocation. However, there may be some cost savings associated with closing the polls down. The resulting costs for the county will still be over $1 million for the primary.

The cost savings of RCV primarily come from eliminating elections. For King County, due to its size plus holding elections in odd-numbered years, the savings over time would be substantial.

Will King County learn from Pierce County's experience?

Hint: Aspen, Colorado did.

King County has the opportunity to move its county level elections to Ranked Choice Voting, and, if done efficiently, saving money for the taxpayers. To do this, King County must learn from the experiences in Pierce County, Washington and Aspen, Colorado. The potential for savings in odd-numbered years is in the millions of dollars. How can King County accomplish this?

In November, 2008, Pierce County held its first ever Ranked Choice Voting election with races for County Executive, County Assessor-Treasurer, and County Sheriff and County Council. The Elections Department chose to implement Ranked Choice Voting through buying the software from their existing election systems vendor. The software was expensive and required a second ballot card with the associated printing and postage costs.

In May, 2009, Aspen, Colorado chose to employ a specialist firm who used the existing hardware and software for the standard elections and a combination of off-the-shelf optical scanners plus open source software to generate the Ranked Choice Voting results. This off-the-shelf solution does not require a second ballot card and the associated expenses.

Both in Pierce County and in Aspen, the systems provided ballot image files of the voters' choices and reporting of the rounds of RCV results. These reports represent a significant step forward in openness and transparency in elections. This publishing of results and ballot images is a model for all elections.

In Aspen, the vendor charged $7,500 plus expenses of getting there. These expenses were obviously less than the savings from eliminating a run-off election. Thus, Aspen saved money on a net basis as compared to their old system.

If King County were to move to RCV to elect its county level officials, it would save $1+ million in each odd-numbered year by folding the primary for those positions into the general election. The additional expense would be associated with getting state certification of the cheaper outside vendor plus a nominal sum for consulting and expenses. On a net basis, there would significant savings by the county.

Of course, if entities such as the Port of Seattle were to follow King County's lead, the expense savings would increase since there are significant economies of scale in using elections systems. The Port would likely save as much money as the County in moving to RCV, but is not likely to be able to do so unless the County makes the first move.

The King County Citizens' Elections Oversight Committee should recommend to the County Council and the voters of King County the implementation of RCV for King County's county level officials. RCV will encourage voter choice and save money for the county.

King County Would Save $1+ million by Using Ranked Choice Voting

King County would save significant costs by adopting Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and folding the primary into the general election for its county level officials. King County's system of electing its county level officials in odd-numbered years is significant in obtaining more cost savings. King County should adopt RCV.

Much has been written and said about the costs of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in Pierce County, but little analysis has been done for King County elections and how they would be affected by the adoption of RCV for county level elections.

King County is different from Pierce County in several ways. It is a larger county in terms of numbers of voters. It holds its county level elections during odd-numbered years. It has a very large number of local jurisdictions such as cities, school districts, fire districts, etc. What impact do these differences have on the costs of implementing RCV at the county level for King County? All of these differences mean spreading the cost of implementation over a larger base and enjoying more of the savings.

To see how this would work, let's examine the last set of county level elections in King County. In the August 2007 primary election, 35 jurisdictions in King County held primaries for one office or another. The total cost of the election was about $3.7 million. The costs were allocated amongst the various jurisdictions and the county's cost allocation was $1.24 million. If King County county level officials were elected using RCV in 2007, the county's cost for this election would have been $0 because there would have been no primary for county level elections. This would have been a savings of $1.24 million for the county.

In the November 2007 general election, 131 jurisdictions held elections for one office or another. The total cost of the election was about $5.8 million. The costs were allocated amongst the various jurisdictions and the county's cost allocation was $750,000. This reduced cost was due to sharing costs amongst the larger number of jurisdictions participating in the general election.

In odd-numbered years, there are always more jurisdictions participating in the general election, since primaries are only held for offices where more than two candidates signed up to run for a particular city council or school board position. By opting out of the primary by adopting RCV, the county will be able to save significant money over the top 2 system currently in use.

In 2008, Pierce County did not experience this cost savings since all counties in the state of Washington must pay for the federal and state level primaries held in their respective counties. These primaries only occur in even-numbered years. Thus, the county had to pay for the primary despite the fact that there were no county level races happening. King County is in a far different position than Pierce County in this respect. Interestingly, there are a couple of charter amendments on the Pierce County ballot this year to move county level elections in Pierce County to odd-numbered years similar to how King, Snohomish and Whatcom County handle their elections.

The Pierce County Elections Department testified before the King County Citizens' Elections Oversight Committee (CEOC) and completely left out the cost savings from eliminating the primary from their presentation. From a King County perspective, this leaves a significant portion of the analysis out of the discussion.

The CEOC should understand that the King County situation is such that RCV will save King County money if it adopts RCV for its county level officials. The probable savings are something on the order of $1 million every two years after the original investment has been made.

King County should adopt RCV to elect its county level officials.

Note: The cost allocation numbers are based on information received from King County Elections.

Fiscal Analysis of Ranked Choice Voting in Washington

Summary

How Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is implemented and the existing election infrastructure have large impacts on the fiscal efficiency of RCV elections. The primary fiscal advantage of RCV is the elimination of an election for a jurisdiction. The cost of RCV can be divided into two parts: one-time capital expenses associated with acquiring software and hardware to count the votes plus the ongoing costs of running each election.

The capital costs associated with acquiring equipment and software are best defrayed by multiple uses of the software by the same election departments. Multiple uses allows jurisdictions to obtain the savings benefits without incurring additional capital costs. The best implementations will be in situations where multiple jurisdictions can eliminate elections through multiple uses of the capital investments.

Fiscal Advantages

Elections cost money to run. Eliminating an election saves money.

In California, local jurisdictions require run-off elections when no candidate receives a majority of the votes. Before adopting RCV, San Francisco was frequently forced to run runoff elections in December at considerable expense to taxpayers. With adoption of RCV, San Francisco has eliminated the need for runoff elections and consequently saves significant money in each annual election cycle. Los Angeles is contemplating converting for some of the same reasons.

In North Carolina, Cary, a city of more than 100,000, used RCV in 2007, eliminating the need for a runoff. The added voter education and election administration costs for RCV were outweighed by the savings from not holding a runoff by a ratio of more than three-to-one.

In Washington, the Top Two amounts to an "automatic runoff" system -- we always have two rounds of voting no matter how many candidates run, with a preliminary election in August and a November runoff between the top two. Cost savings from RCV comes from the elimination of the preliminary election in August and folding it into the November vote.

In Pierce County in 2008 where RCV was implemented for county level officials, the elimination of the preliminary round for county level officials did not do away with the cost of administering that election since the county must pay for the federal and state level primary elections in even-numbered years -- not fair to the county, perhaps, but a current fact of life. As a result, Pierce County did not receive any taxpayer savings from its implementation in 2008, although it did sharply reduce the costs for candidates running for office.

In 2009, Pierce County will be holding elections for local jurisdictions (e.g. city councils, school boards, port commissions, park commissions, and fire commissions). In addition, it will be holding a RCV election for the Pierce County Auditor position. In odd years such as 2009, local jurisdictions pay for their own elections, not the county. The county only pays for those elections it holds.

In 2007, the Port of Tacoma (a countywide jurisdiction) incurred election expenses of over $325,000 for just the August primary. A primary election for Auditor would cost the county a similar amount of money in 2009. Since Pierce County will be using RCV to elect its Auditor, this will be a 2009 cost savings for the county as compared to standard election procedure.

Several charter counties (e.g. King, Snohomish and Whatcom) in Washington regularly hold their county level elections in odd-numbered years. These counties would get these cost savings every two years if they implemented RCV for their county level officials. Pierce County has charter amendments on the 2009 ballot to shift county level elections to odd years. This would have the impact of saving money on these elections on a regular basis.

One-time Capital Expenses

In 2008, Pierce County invested in upgrades to its elections software and hardware to implement RCV and generally speed up all elections processing. Whenever making an investment in software, the first use is always the most expensive. Subsequent uses and multiple uses at the same time help spread out the costs.

To see how this would work, let us consider a possible scenario in Pierce County for 2009. Suppose in addition to Pierce County using RCV to elect its Auditor, the Port of Tacoma and the Metro Park District of Tacoma used RCV to elect their Commissioners. In 2007, the Port District and the Park District combined to spend over $400,000 on the August primary election. The Port and Park Districts would save this money in this scenario. In the general election, the Elections Department would not need to buy another piece of software or hardware to run these RCV elections. Thus, the benefits of the investment would be spread to a larger group of jurisdictions.

For King, Snohomish and Whatcom counties, they would have this benefit every two years for any local jurisdiction choosing to use RCV. For these counties, using RCV for both county level officials and local level officials would have the cost benefit of eliminating an election by taking advantage of the county's investment.

Expenses in each Election Cycle

While in 2008 in Pierce County the majority of the expenses were one-time investments, there were still some costs which will be incurred each time you run a RCV election. These expenses are almost exclusively tied to the desire of the Secretary of State and the vendor to have the RCV elections on a separate ballot card from other elections. Since in most election cycles, Pierce County has been able to get all of the races and ballot measures on one ballot card, this separate ballot card requirement meant an increase in printing, paper and postage costs for our mail-in ballots.

With only one RCV election on the ballot this November, it is ludicrous to suggest that it should be on a separate ballot when it comes with extra costs. The County Auditor's office has done a poor job in negotiating its contract if it cannot resolve this question.

The Pierce County Elections Department should be pressuring the vendor to eliminate this separate ballot card requirement as a way to save money. Other counties in Washington considering implementing RCV should make sure discuss this issue with their vendor before buying software for RCV.

Still there are ways to save money on this expense. Let's go back to our 2009 scenario where Pierce County is electing its Auditor, and the Port of Tacoma and the Metro Parks District are electing their Commissioners using RCV. All of these races would fit on one RCV ballot card. No additional RCV expenses would need to be incurred. Plus the RCV expenses would be split three ways instead of totally being incurred by the County.

In the scenario above, each entity (County, Port and Park District) would have reduced costs versus the traditional election procedures. This comes about through leveraging the county's investment in software by the Port and Park Districts. This scenario shows what is possible in King, Snohomish and Whatcom Counties if they are to try implementing RCV in their county level elections.

Implementing in environments where an election is eliminated allows one to get the fiscal benefit of RCV. Implementing across multiple races across multiple election cycles allows the county to leverage its investment in software and hardware to benefit multiple jurisdictions. King, Snohomish and Whatcom counties have real potential to implement fiscally efficient RCV elections.

King County Council votes to study IRV/RCV by 5-3

Note: Brie Gyncild attended the King County Council meeting today and files this report to fans of RCV.

Hi all,

Several of us attended the King County Council meeting this afternoon, and IRV has moved to the next phase in this county. Bob Ferguson introduced the legislation and shepherded it through Larry Gossett's committee. Today, Dow Constantine spoke eloquently in favor of IRV just before the vote.

Our folks, Rich Anderson-Connolly and Brita Butler-Wall spoke in favor of the motion. Technically, no one was supposed to speak, but because we'd been misinformed, they let a couple of us slip in.

From here, the Citizens Election Oversight Committee takes up the issue. The committee is tasked with evaluating IRV, identifying pros and cons, and reporting back to the Council by January 2, 2010. Councilmember Ferguson came out and spoke with us for a moment after the vote, and he told us that the Council holds the CEOC in high esteem. He says they're a good group of people who do their work well, and that the Council almost without exception accepts their recommendations. He also said the CEOC would want to talk with us, of course.

And we know now where we have work to do before the Council eventually votes, assuming the CEOC recommends moving forward with IRV. Strong supporters appear to be Councilmembers Ferguson and Constantine (who worked on this issue in the state leg). Other aye votes were Councilmembers Gossett, Phillips, and Patterson. Nay votes came from Councilmembers Dunn, Hague, and Von Reichbauer. Councilmember Lambert was absent.

We're one more step forward on this lengthy process!

best,
brie

RCV Spring in Washington

Ranked Choice Voting (aka Instant Runoff Voting or IRV) has enjoyed a real surge in popularity this spring in the state of Washington.

The King County Charter Review Commission has recommended to the County Council to form a task force to investigate using Pierce County-style RCV in their county level elections.

The Washington State Youth Legislature passed a bill to use RCV to elect its officers in future years.

The UW Seattle students used IRV to elect their student body officers on Tuesday. All of the winners received support from a majority of the voters despite there being several candidates in each race. In addition, turnout was up significantly.

Last, but certainly not least, the Pierce County Elections Department is deep in preparation for the largest RCV election in US history this November. Voter education is beginning and enhancements to voting systems are being put into place.

RCV is breaking out all over.

King County Charter Review Commission and RCV

Editor's Note: Joe Szwaja and others testified before the Commission in an effort to get RCV in King County similar to what Pierce County has. Here is his report.

Hi folks this is to let you know that last night we won a modest but significant victory on the road to opening up our voting system to more voices and choices through using Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), also known as Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in King County. The King County Charter Review Commission, a group of citizens appointed every 10 years to recommend changes in the County's Charter, voted 16-1 to ask the King County Council to form a citizens task force to investigate whether we should put an initiative in support of IRV for County Elections of the ballot in King County. The recommendation is for the citizens's task force to be convened in January 2010 and to make a recommendation about the advisability of an IRV initiative by the end of the year.

Of course, we would have preferred something much stronger, we were urging the commission to recommend adoption of IRV right away due its many advantages, including ensuring the election of a true majority, encouraging greater voter turnout, reducing negative campaigning, allowing people to vote their hopes rather than their fears by eliminating the "spoiler" factor, and saving pubic dollars by combining the primary and general election into a single contest.

Still, the commissions' vote was a significant victory for electoral reform, their initial recommendation had been to essentially do nothing- take no action of IRV and to simply wait and see what happens in Pierce County where IRV will be used for the first time this year after a successful pubic vote. Our public testimony affirmed the fact that IRV has been used successfully around the country and around the world for decades and demonstrated broad public support for a system that offers much greater choice. The fact that IRV had more support during the Commission's pubic hearings than any other issue by far was recognized in their discussion last night; clearly it was what turned the tide in favor of the commission voting to give IRV more specific consideration. About 30 people testified during the 4 public hearings, including a large number of young people, and dozens wrote letters as well. Thanks much to all of you who participated!

There is much more work to be done, including educating the members of the King County Council about the merits of IRV. We gained a lot of support and educated a lot of people during the public hearing process. Let's savor this small but significant victory and keep our poitive momentum going to have an effective citizen's advisory group that will recommend putting IRV on the ballot in King County.

Thanks
Joe Szwaja
Vice President Instant Runoff Voting of Washignton

King County: Ranked Choice Voting and Non-Partisan Elections

King County is considering both moving the election of its officials to ranked choice voting as well as selecting its officials in non-partisan elections. Both efforts reflect a frustration with our current system of running elections. King County should review what has happened in Pierce County in making these decisions.

In Pierce County in 2006, the voters passed Ranked Choice Voting for county level officials except Prosecuting Attorney and judges. This decision was reaffirmed in 2007 by a 67% vote against delaying implementation past 2008. The Pierce County elections department is moving smoothly to implement Ranked Choice Voting in 2008.

The impact on the Pierce County Executive race this year has been wonderful. Already four strong candidates (Shawn Bunney (R), Calvin Goings (D), Mike Lonergan (I) and Pat McCarthy (D)) have announced their candidacies. Lonergan represents the most significant independent campaign for county level office which Pierce County has seen since the adoption of its charter.

Voters will have the opportunity to see all four of these candidates on the general election ballot in November. Further, they will be able to rank their first, second and third choices. With the strength of the field, those second and third choices will be very important in determining the ultimate winner of this race. Voter choice will win.

In 2007, the Pierce County Council put on the ballot charter amendments to make the Assessor-Treasurer, Auditor and Sheriff positions non-partisan. No "pro" statements were written for these measures in the voters pamphlet. They all passed with 74+% of the vote. Voters in Pierce County apparently view these positions as primarily administrative and not partisan in nature. It is also possible that voters just do not like the political parties.

Peter von Reichbauer is working to put a charter amendment on the ballot which would make many King County positions non-partisan. He has raised enough money to collect the signatures to qualify this charter amendment for the ballot. Given the experience in Pierce County, it seems likely that such a proposal would pass in King County.

The King County Council should consider putting a Ranked Choice Voting proposal on the ballot in November as well. The voters of Pierce County are going to reap the benefits of more voter choice in November. Let's hope King County voters will have the ability to vote themselves more choice in the future as well.

King County considers Ranked Choice Voting

On December 10, 2007, Kelly Haughton and Professor Richard Anderson-Connolly testified on behalf of Ranked Choice Voting before the King County Charter Review Commission's Governmental Structure Subcommittee. Haughton and Anderson-Connolly recommended putting a charter amendment on the 2008 ballot to implement ranked choice voting for county level officials in King County.

Below is a summary of their comments before the Commission.


1) How it works

Anderson-Connolly showed an educational video aimed at voters from the San Francisco's Election Department. San Francisco has been using Ranked Choice Voting since 2004 for their municipal elections. In 2007, they elected their Mayor using Ranked Choice Voting.


2) Benefits

a) Voter Satisfaction

All surveys of voters using ranked choice voting in the US show they prefer ranked choice voting to their previous system. On the other hand, the Washington Secretary of State's office reports it has received more complaints about the pick-a-party primary system than any other thing they have done in the history of the office. Further, the Secretary of State's office reports that only 21% of the voters thought the pick-a-party system was OK.

We recommended King County shift the election of its county level officials from an election system (pick-a-party primary) which voters do not like to one which voters do like.

b) Majority Winners

Ranked Choice Voting allows voters to list their second and third choices. If no candidate receives a majority of the first choices, the Ranked Choice Voting system moves towards finding the candidate with majority support.

c) Concentrate Decision Making in High Turnout General

By consolidating the primary and general election into one election, all voters participating in the high turnout election are participating in both narrowing down the set of candidates and selecting the majority winner. It is healthy for democracy to have more voters participating in all steps.

The August primary has very low turnout due to voter fatigue and disgust with the system. Consolidating its functionality into the general helps deal with both of these problems.

d) Equitable Treatment of Candidates

State law discriminates against independents and minor party candidates. By making the ballot access requirements for major party, minor party and independent candidates all the same plus putting them all directly on the general election ballot, King County can level the playing field.

In addition, the Ranked Choice Voting system allows voters to list independents and minor party candidates as their first choices without the spoiler effect coming into play.

e) Potential Reduced mudslinging

In some jurisdictions where they are now using Ranked Choice Voting, candidates are campaigning and fundraising together. This has included joint mailings to voters. This appears to be the result of a desire to receive second choice votes.


3) Why King County?

a) Charter County

King County is a charter county. The Washington State Constitution allows charter counties flexibility in selecting how to elect their officials. It was through this provision that Pierce County was able to adopt Ranked Choice Voting to elect its county level officials.

b) Odd-Year Elections

King County elects its county level officials in odd-numbered years. During these years, the only pick-a-party primary races in King County are the county level officials. Thus, King County can eliminate the usage of the pick-a-party primary every other year. For some precincts in the county, this may mean there will be no races on the ballot in August. This could result in cost savings for the county.

c) Local Option

The State Legislature is considering a bill which would give local jurisdictions such as cities, school districts, port districts, etc. the option to use ranked choice voting to elect their officials. Given that King County would be using ranked choice voting to elect its county level officials in odd-numbered years at the same time local jurisdictions are electing their officials, there are strong possibilities for synergies and cost savings if King County were to adopt Ranked Choice Voting.


4) Why Now?

a) Pierce County voters reject delay 2-1

Pierce County voters were given the option to delay implementation of Ranked Choice Voting and 67% of the voters voted No on delay. Why? The voters are ready for a change. King County voters want change as well.

b) Only Opponents of RCV in Favor of Delay

Really the only people who favor delay of Ranked Choice Voting are those who do not want to implement it at all. The voters want change. Ranked Choice Voting for King County can really only be implemented through the Charter Review process. Waiting for the next Charter Review Commission is not wise. It misses the opportunity to allow voters to change from a system they don't like to one they will.

We encourage the King County Charter Review Commission to put a proposed charter amendment on the 2008 ballot which would implement Ranked Choice Voting in King County in 2011.

King County has the opportunity to take a leadership position in the state. It is time for the county to step forward.

King County Charter Review hears ranked choice voting testimony

King County residents have been testifying before the King County Charter Review Commission in favor of moving to some form of ranked choice voting. These voters want to be able to rank the candidates for office and more completely represent their views. The Commission has been taking testimony from around the county and will continue to do so for several months.

Some residents have testified against ranked choice voting since they believe it will weaken the two party system by allowing voters to rank candidates of other parties without wasting their vote. Their concern seems to be that if the playing field is levelled and the wasted vote syndrome is eliminated, other parties and independents might have a chance to be elected.

Of course, others who feel disenfranchised by the current system and would like to be able to rank the candidates without fear of wasting their vote view this as a positive event. Many voters do not like the current system for the very reason that it limits choice. Many voters do not like to have to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Public Comment Before the King County Charter Review Commission

The last two opportunities to testify before the King County Charter Review Commission will be on July 9 and 10. Please see the Charter Review website for details.

Proponents of ranked choice voting are encouraged to testify on behalf of implementing election reform similar to Pierce County's ranked choice voting.

King County Charter Review meeting on April 24

The King County Charter Review Commission will be holding its next meeting on April 24.

Charter Review Commission second meeting
Seattle Municipal Tower
40th Floor
Conference Rooms 4050/4060
700 - 5th AvenueSeattle, WA 98104
5:30-7:30 pm

Ranked Choice Voting advocates are encouraged to attend and voice their support for Pierce County style reform of King County elections.

King County Charter Review Commission meeting on April 24

The King County Charter Review Commission met on March 27, 2007. The presentation made to the Commission listed some areas for review. One potential area missing from the presentation was the possibility of moving the election of county level officials to Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) (or Ranked Choice Voting). We hope some commissioners will look into this possibility.

The next meeting of the Commission will be April 24.

Seattle Municipal Tower
40th Floor Conference Rooms
4050/4060
700 - 5th AvenueSeattle, WA 98104
5:30-7:30 pm

The public is welcome to attend.

It appears from the material posted on their website that public outreach and public comment will happen in May and June.

King County Charter Review Commission meeting agenda 2/27/2007

Meeting 1 – Meet and Greet Session
Seattle Municipal Tower
40th Floor
5:00pm-7:00pm
(Dinner to follow shortly thereafter – O’Asian)
Co-Chairs: Gov. Mike Lowry and Lois North


5:05pm-5:20pm – Executive Sims addresses and welcomes the commission. Executive Sims communicates his vision for this Charter Review Commission

5:30pm-5:45pm – Introductions to the Charter Review Commission, the Co-Chairs, and Staff

5:45pm-6:00pm – Introduction to the Charter Review Process

6:00pm-6:10pm – Break

6:10pm-6:30pm – Executive Summary of the 1996-1997 Charter Review Process

6:30pm-7:00pm – Next Steps (Set timeline, dates for next meeting, divide into workgroups)

7:00pm-9:00pm – Dinner at O’Asian Restaurant (800 Fifth Avenue, Seattle WA 98104)

King County Charter Review Commission membership list

2007 KING COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION (This list is in order of district representation -- the Co-Chairs are former Governor Mike Lowry & Lois North)

Kirstin Haugen
Former King County council staffmember; Currently at Mercury (Political Advertising Firm)

Dan Gandara
Founding partner at VJ&G Law firm, President - King County Bar Association

Darcy Goodman
Former King County District Court Judge, member KC Budget Advisory Task Force

Juan Bocanegra
Community Activist / Northwest Empowerment Institute

John Groen
Founding partner of Groen Stephens & Klinge LLP

Terry Lavendar
Shared Strategy for Puget Sound

Bryan Glynn
Legal counsel for Cascade Land
Conservancy; former director of King County's Building and Land Development Permitting Agency

Gregg Hirakawa
City of Seattle DOT Director of Communications

Lois North
Former King County Councilmember -
Original freeholder

Mike Wilkins
Former Deputy Assistant County Executive

Tara Jo Heinecke
Outgoing Chair, 33rd District Dems, Extensive Background in labor relations

Doreen Cato
Executive Director of First Place

Sarah Rindlaub
Washington Policy Center Board Member, worked for Hoover Institute and the airline industry

James Williams
Partner at Perkins Coie Law Firm

Trisha Ann Bennett
VP Gov't Affairs, Bennett Forest Industries

Allan W. Munro
Distingushed lawyer, Active community member

Gary Long
Suburban Cities Association - Former City Manager, Burien

Jim English
UAC Member - President of Vashon-Maury Island

Sharon Maeda
Longtime community activist and served on KC Governance Commission

John Jensen
President of Newcastle Chamber of Commerce

Mike Lowry
Former Governor and King County Councilmember

King County Charter Review Commission meeting

The King County Charter Review Commission will hold its first meeting on February 27, 2007 in the Seattle Municipal Tower. This meeting will be primarily a meet and greet meeting.