Submitted by Chris Leyba.
The Pierce County Council introduced resolution 60 and 61 over a month ago in an effort to make the Pierce County auditor and Pierce County Sheriff appointed positions under the executive’s office. Additionally, as of yesterday they have introduced R130 and R131 to soften up the language of the other two resolutions while keeping the spirit the same. These resolutions, if passed during a vote during the upcoming July 27 council meeting, will strip away the right of the voters to choose their chief elections officer and chief law enforcement officer.
This is a heavily Tacoma influenced effort pushed by council members who live in Tacoma and Lakewood. The thing is, these two jurisdictions don’t have a real stake in the game with the Pierce County Sheriff. They have municipal law enforcement agencies with better funding. They won’t be subject to any detrimental changes to the sheriff’s office, regardless of what happens with these resolutions.
They also understand that, if these resolutions make it to the 2021 general election ballot, they will be able to rely heavily on voters in Tacoma and Lakewood who, again, have little at stake in regards to the Pierce County Sheriff. They are served by their own municipal agencies.
Finally, this effort is being spun as a way to get rid of Sheriff Ed Troyer. Based on recent news events, the focus of any yes on resolution 60 campaign will be on removing Troyer from office. The yes campaign will attempt to completely distract the voter from the fact that the county is asking you to surrender your voting rights to these positions.
Please do not fall for this. Elected sheriffs are societies best direct access to accountability for their chief law enforcement official. The reason that the council majority wants to take away your right to vote for this person, as well as your county auditor, is because they don’t think you are smart enough or qualified enough to make the decision on your own. If Pierce County has a problem with the sheriff or auditor, we have an election or recall process already in place to replace them.
Don’t let them get away with this. Voting rights are everyone’s rights. This will disproportionately affect some of our lowest income communities and take away their direct access to the way they want law enforcement and elections to be administered in their neighborhoods.
Do not let the county council strip you of your right to vote. Contact your councilman or councilwoman today and make it very clear you expect a no vote on R-60, R61, R130, and R131.
The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.
I don’t know how many times, in the last year plus, I have heard Democrat officials and pundits make claims in the news about how Republicans are attempting to restrict/supress voters rights. Then I read the above submission, and look up the corresponding legislation, only to learn how the now Deocratic leaning Pierce County Council hopes to strip the rights of voters to freely elect a Sheriff and Auditor. It is situations like these that make me mistrust elected officials more than I already do!
Councilwoman Hitchen do the right thing and leave this off the ballot and continue it as a vote of the people.
Ì am somewhat ambivalent about this issue. On one hand, I’m of the opinion that these two positions are for functions that the general electorate have little insight into. That is, the Couty Council is in a m uch better position to force transparency and make informed decisions on public service.
On the other hand, our society does not have a good track record when it comes to exercising its right to vote. That could be attributed, or at least aggravated, by the lack of “civics” as part of school curriculum.
I don’t really see this through the same lens as the writer of the OpEd piece. I see it more as a logical extension of a “republican democracy”, not to be confused with the Republican Party. As County voters we choose the council, the Cou ty Executive, the Assessor, our school boards, etc. I’m not so sure that the electorate has the time, ability, or even interest in exercising an appropriate level of due diligence in arriving at an informed vote.
Let’s face it, it’s all political; and it’s not really a question of partisanship, it’s really a question of too much politics for the general to make decisions with little more than anecdotal information.
Finally, bringing more positions into the Electoral tent will, in my honest opinion, give activists additional, but inappropriate, means of spreading unrelated agenda. Elected officials should have their feet held to the fire, but let’s keep the number of feet down to a manageable level.
It’s convenient that you didn’t mention these resolutions are supported by Bruce Dammier, the Republican county executive.
You also leave out the important information that these resolutions would require a two-thirds majority to be put on the ballot. The Democrats hold the majority 4-3, so at least one of the republicans would need to vote with them. If these resolutions are passed, it will be on a bipartisan basis.
https://www.knkx.org/post/appointed-or-elected-pierce-county-voters-may-soon-decide-how-pick-sheriff-auditor
I guess that wouldn’t fit into your narrative that this is a Democratic conspiracy against the people, so the omission makes sense.
You also failed to mention that the current auditor has voiced support for this change.
https://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/article251897078.html
Finally, you are opposed to a resolution, put forward by the elected council, that would allow the county’s population to decide if it wants these to be elected or appointed positions. If your opposition is because you’d like the position to be elected, fair enough. You can vote against it if it gets to the ballot and tell all your friends, colleagues, and random passersby to vote against it. If these resolutions pass I will encourage others to vote for them because I think it’s sound policy. But the insinuation from the author and your own reference to the Democrats make it clear that your issue isn’t really about the soundness of this policy. You see this as a chance to score points in a wider political game.
No my point is that I dont trust politicians. It is to be a non-partisan position and I fear, like at the Federal Level, everytime an Exec changes the Sheriff will too. Just as the cabinet positions all Presidents must fill. They rarely fill those cabinet positions with individuals from the opposing party. It soley amasses more power under whomever the Exec is, which I am opposed.
I do appreciate you pointing out the needed super majority to make the change to the Charter, which I had not thought about but that does give me hope it will fail if the resolutions makes it to the ballot.
This strikes me as something similar to what is going on in King County concerning the County Sheriff position there. Why do our local leaders repeatedly mimic the questionable policies up north? How are things working for Seattle and its influence on King and Snohomish counties? Need more to the point? Consider the increasing acceptance of homeless tenting, etc., sprouting up in many parts of Tacoma as evidence of misguided copy-cat leadership down here.
I agree with Kim. Let the people vote! Keep the politicians hands off this.
As someone who gave 20 years to the Sheriff’s Department, I whole heartedly endorse returning back to the Sheriff being appointed, rather than elected. People vote largely on name recognition instead of experience and knowledge. Our Sheriff’s who have been appointed over the years have worked under the eye of the Council and were much more accountable. We just recently switched to an elected Sheriff. I suggest we go back.
This is great. Historically when I have made comments to stories in The Suburban Times, I have always had to do my own thinking, writing, and editing.
Not this time. The knowlegeable and experience of that on-target guy, Ray R, duplicates what I know and think. All I have to do is cut and paste Ray R’s comment above after changing the 20 years to 25 years to fit my relationship with the Sheriff’s Department.
So here goes. Watch this. Ray is making this easy.
MODIFIED QUOTE: “As someone who gave 25 years to the Sheriff’s Department, I whole heartedly endorse returning back to the Sheriff being appointed, rather than elected. People vote largely on name recognition instead of experience and knowledge. Our Sheriff’s who have been appointed over the years have worked under the eye of the Council and were much more accountable. We just recently switched to an elected Sheriff. I suggest we go back.” CLOSE QUOTE
Besides, think about it. No one is taking our vote away. The council members are placed into office based on a voting process. We should be comfortable delegating the decisions for appointments to the people voted into office.
Using Chris Leyba’s approach, we would need to insist that things such as the selection for janitorial service or where Pierce County buys their office supplies all be put up for a vote because we can’t trust the council.
Lastly, while Chris Leyba is correct about certain jurisdictions having their own police departments, it is incorrect to think anyone in Pierce County is totally disconnected from the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department (PCSD). PCSD runs the jail, runs a wanted and warrant detail, runs the civil unit that handles legal papers, secures the bus system, and secures the County City Building.
Tacoma is in Pierce County. Lakewood is in Pierce County.
All you have to do is review the Janovich and Troyer election results to understand returning to the appointment system for Pierce County Sheriff is in the voter’s best interest.
Don’t believe me yet? Take a close look at the past Dale Washam Pierce County Assessor-Treasurer results and, well, I close my case.
Joseph Boyle – Former Lakewood resident – 51 years
I wonder why you are a former resident? Lose too much freedom?
I favor the County Executive as the person who appoints the sheriff. We are in a time when candidates for the position should be recruited from all over the country and not just persons elected from Pierce County.
We need professionals with big municipality expertise to run our sheriff’s office. Gone are the days when a public-sperit local citizen is necessarily the best candidate for the highly responsible position!
https://thesubtimes.com/2020/06/07/westside-story-face-name-recognition/
Hmm… No bias here
Chris, good article. This is a total political power grab. This is already in effect in King county. I am tired of all the power grabs and give aways. I guess it’s time to move out of Washington. It will get worse before it gets better.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!
Last night, I attended the “In District” County Council meeting, which just so happended to be in District 6 where I live. I provided my public comment on the above proposals and after the meeting I met with my Rep. for District 6 Councilwoman Hitchen. She shared with me that she was the sponsor of the above mentioned resolutions. I questioned what made her submit the proposals and she eluded to the Ed Troyer issue but also stated there just weren’t qualified candidates running. I disagree, as the field we just elected our Sheriff from, in my opinion, had 3 qualified candidates. When I inquired “what if” the rest of the Council felt like there weren’t qualified candidates running for District 6, her seat, should we change the process and appoinent someone to fill that position? She really didnt have an answer and said running the Seriffs Office needed more knowledge/experience and had more responsibility than legislating for the County. Hmm…Really Councilwoman?
We have a recall porcess if we are unhappy with our elected officials so let’s use the process vs. changing the rules.
One of the points above noted we elected officials so shouldn’t we trust them to oversee the Sheriff? My response is that we elected a Sheriff too so shouldnt we trust that election the same as we trust the one which put the councilmembers in place? Also, if we look at this from Councilwoman Hitchen perspective how can we trust the Council to change the process of selecting a Sheriff when that position has more responsibilty than legislating for the County, as the Councilwoman expressed?
I agree that since the county voted to stop the Executive from appointing the Sheriff and Auditor, then so shall we have the option of reversing the direction.
That said, I moved to Pierce county 40 years ago and the current sheriff had been running the department and corruption was rampant.
The people decided to elect the sheriff as King County had done so for years. I am for electing the Sheriff and Auditor spots as these are key positions to hold the rest of elected county members accountable.
Remember that under the State Constitution that the person responsible for upholding the Law within the county is the Sheriff!
Pierce County is going in the same direction as Seattle/King County by making these positions appointed rather than elected. And we know what has happened in Seattle/King County; rampant crime, de facto drug legalization resulting in more addiction, runaway homelessness and all of its attendant crime and other problems, defunding the police. As the saying goes, “as Seattle/King County goes, so goes the rest of the state”. What’s good for King County is not necessarily good for the rest of us. I can’t wait to retire in a couple of years and move back to my hometown in Michigan, where the various governments have a little more common sense, and regard for the citizens.