Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Todd Mielke: Five commissioners would benefit Spokane County

By Todd Mielke

Little has survived since Washington became a state in 1889 and Spokane County had 55,000 residents. Three county commissioners were enough to manage county business.

Today, half a million people live in the Spokane area. There are more legislative mandates, life is more complex, and people expect more from their government. Yet we still expect three individuals to meet those demands.

Spokane County Proposition 1 is straightforward: Do we believe that three individuals can fulfill the current legal demands and public expectations of running this county? It asks whether five commissioners are more appropriate than three.

Opponents argue that since 1990, the number of people living in the unincorporated parts of the county has declined. Therefore, the workload must have diminished. That reasoning fails to recognize the role of counties, which are more than a local government for those who live outside cities.

Counties are extensions of the state. They must provide state services to all residents: the criminal justice system, property tax system, elections, official document recording, and more. There are mandated significant roles in public health, land use, and environmental regulations. Since 1990, the county’s overall population has grown by more than 35 percent. Services must accommodate those additional people.

The most significant issue addressed by Prop. 1 is representation. County commissioners serve on a number of boards and commissions. Interlocal agreements and legislation often require the chairman of the board or another commissioner to participate. As the chairman this year, I serve on 26 boards outside of my daily duties as commissioner. Commissioners Al French and Shelly O’Quinn serve on 15-17 boards.

Scheduling conflicts are frequent, which means commissioners frequently miss some board meetings, and votes. When one commissioner called in sick recently, and another commissioner had a speaking engagement on the county’s behalf, previously scheduled meetings were cancelled because of a lack of a quorum to conduct business.

When a commissioner cannot attend a group’s meeting, other members feel slighted but, most importantly, their input is not considered when commissioners make future decisions that affect those organizations or constituencies. City councils address this challenge by spreading meeting assignments among more members.

Opponents say many of these boards are voluntary, or that commissioners can send their staff instead. Some even point out the law requires commissioners attend only four commission meetings per year — maybe a reasonable expectation back in 1889, but I don’t believe citizens today would tolerate such a minimalist approach by their elected officials. They want their views represented and expect their elected officials to carry their message, not some non-elected staff person.

Cost estimates for Prop. 1 center on whether each commissioner should continue to have a personal assistant funded with tax dollars, or whether they should share pooled staff to fulfill functions such as scheduling, arranging travel, and providing information to constituents. For two additional commissioners, the cost of salary and benefits is estimated at $250,000 per year. If you add personal staff, the number exceeds $400,000.

Put into perspective, two additional commissioners would equate to one-tenth of 1 percent of the county’s $150 million general fund budget. If you consider all budgets, the cost equates to four-hundredths of 1 percent of the combined $600 million budget.

Prop. 1 focuses only on how many commissioners are needed to properly represent the county. Some would like more — to separate out the executive branch, elect commissioners by district, convert some currently elected positions to appointed, or create an initiative process at the county level.

Those issues can only be addressed by converting to a charter county — a process that requires the election of freeholders who then draft a local “constitution” to present to the voters. The last time a charter was considered in this region, the three-year effort was turned down by 58 percent of the voters — some saying it attempted to do too many things at once.

Prop. 1 will not shorten the day for county commissioners. It will mean they attend more meetings, yet spend time with constituents and getting outside of meeting rooms to see what’s going on in the community they represent. That’s what representative government is really all about — interacting with constituents and hearing their views on major public policies.

Todd Mielke has served as a Spokane County commissioner since 2004 and previously served in the Washington House of Representatives. He is currently serving as the chairman of the Board of County Commissioners.

Editor’s note: Former Spokane County Commissioner John Roskelley took the opposing view Sept. 27. His op-ed can be found at http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/sep/27/county-commissioner-expansion-unnecessary/