Coalitions, Charters, and Cash: After Election 2000by Paul Pickett It's been one of the strangest political seasons we are likely to see for a long time. On the national scene there's been the Presidential election ('nuf said). Statewide, the Cantwell-Gorton race was decided by a political whisker, the state legislature is closely split between D's and R's, we decided on a number of initiatives including a winner and a loser from Tim Eyman. Locally we saw hard-fought elections for County Commission. At my own personal level, a funny thing happened this year: I registered as a candidate for Thurston Public Utility District Commissioner, campaigned for the position, and by golly I won the doggone thing! Yes, Election 2000 has been quite an adventure. With the smoke clearing from the election scene, it's a good time for environmental activists to assess the consequences of this election. What have we learned? Where do we go from here? Money, money, money. My biggest personal lesson from my campaign is seeing first-hand the importance of money in politics. Almost 100,000 people voted in Thurston County this election. How do you reach them with your name and your message? Printing and postage at about 33¢ per piece means over $30,000 for a county-wide mailing. Ads in the Olympian begin at $750. You also need ads in weeklies and monthlies, radio ads, yard signs. In short, you need forty to sixty thousand dollars to run a county-wide campaign. State-wide elections are multi-million dollar affairs. I thought I did pretty well to raise a thousand dollars. The money needed for elections is almost incomprehensible. Who has that kind of money? And what do the politicians do for that kind of money? There are two big messages for those of us who want to see environmental issues succeed in the environmental arena. We need to raise lots of money. And we need to level the playing field with campaign finance reform. In particular we need public funding for both public office and initiative campaigns that abide by strong spending limits. Environmentalists will never be able to compete with the big money interests that back anti-environmental positions. Campaign finance reform is an environmental issue. Coalition Building The election produced some wins and losses for environmental and slow-growth advocates. County Commission candidate Steve Langer enjoyed strong support from this community, but was defeated in the primary. Langer was targeted for defeat by the development and real estate industry, who threw tens of thousands of dollars into the campaign against him. Cathy Wolfe, his opponent in the primary, brought name recognition and support over from her position in the state legislature. She is also considered a pro-environmental candidate, but the large donations she received from the developers in the primary made her position appear ambiguous. The key point here is that the development/real estate interests have concentrated their efforts into a couple of organizations that act on key issues and campaigns. They employ a full-time lobbyist and can marshal huge amounts of campaign donations. Supporters of the environment can learn something from this group. Environment groups in our community could do more to focus resources on specific targets. Local groups could build coalitions among themselves and with other groups that are logical allies, such as unions, social action groups, and small businesses. In my discussion with Steve Langer, he identified this need as a high priority. He suggested the development of an annual "Environmental Advocacy Workplan" that would divide issues up among local groups and identify priorities for the year. This could result in a more proactive approach, instead of single-issue fire drills. He expressed support for the creation of a county-wide alliance to shepherd these activities. A few of the successes in this election support this idea. In my own race, I received the support from unions, environmental groups, Greens, Democrats, and even a few Republicans. A more significant victory was the defeat of I-745, which a coalition of unions, environmentalists, and advocates for the poor, elderly and disabled can claim credit for (see Street Beat in this issue). Services and Taxes -- the Great Disconnect Once again this year we saw the bizarre spectacle of voters passing a tax-cut initiative (I-722) at the same time that they passed school initiatives requiring greater spending for services (I-728 and I-732). In past years we saw Referendum 49 which poured money into road construction, closely followed by I-695 which cut the funding for road construction. County Commissioner Judy Wilson identifies this as one of the big challenges facing government after this election. She points out that the County's needs are growing, but its income is being cut. People say they want services, but don't want to pay the taxes that pay for them. She suggests "it's time to say: how much do we want, and how do we pay for it?" This is a particularly big problem for environmental protection. Most citizens want a clean environment, yet environmental budgets continue to be the first area for cuts when revenues are limited and belts are tightened. This is a tough problem with no easy solutions. The key is public education. Both Langer and Wilson mentioned the need for citizens to be better informed about county governance. Home Rule and the County Charter In the wake of the election the idea of establishing a County Charter is springing up from diverse quarters. Peter Moulton was a Freeholder during the last County Charter effort in 1990. State law governs the structure of most county governments, but also allows counties to develop Charters which provide local control over the form of their government, hence the term "Home Rule." A County seeking a Charter must first pass a county-wide initiative approving the effort and elect Freeholders. In Thurston County this first step failed in the late 1970s and again in the late 1980s, but passed in 1990. The Freeholders then draft the Charter which county citizens must approve in another vote. Thurston County's Charter in 1990 failed by a wide margin. Most of the most populous counties in Washington have Charters. Kitsap and Clark Counties elected Freeholders in Election 2000. The Charter movement in our county springs from an interest in good government and improved democracy. Most supporters see the need to expand the County Commission to five or more members. The Charter can also do a variety of other things, such as creating a county-wide initiative process, creating an elected County Executive, reducing the number of county elected officials, establishing term limits, and changing taxation authority. Peter Moulton identifies several issues: the need for better geographic representation, referendum powers, and the ability to have working committees in the County Commission. Steve Langer and Judy Wilson both believe that a larger County Commission would encourage more diverse representation from interests in the county. They also point out that the Open Public Meetings Act creates a major problem with a three-person Commission by requiring all conversations between a majority of Commissioners to occur in a public meeting. Therefore only one Commissioner at a time can work on an issue outside of an official meeting. Jeff Sowers, a leader in the local "tele-democracy" effort, likes the democratizing aspect of the Charter. Home rule opens up opportunities for more responsive and accountable government through electoral reform and innovative methods of governance. How can a County Charter be good for the environment? A more responsive and effective county government could do a better job of protecting the environment. A larger County Commission might improve the chances of electing a strong environmental advocate. County-wide initiatives could empower residents to address environmental problems if the Commission is not responsive. A larger Commission would allow elected officials to cover environmental issues better and improve their research and understanding of issues. The alternative, continuing with an antiquated, bare-bones governance model, is going to limit the ability to manage complex environmental challenges such as endangered salmon and clean water. Moving On The election is over, but the struggle for a healthy environment continues. If you already work hard for the environment, keep up the good work. If you want to do more, educate yourself about the issues, and dive right in! There's lots of work ahead if we want to leave a healthy earth to our descendants. Paul Pickett is a Green Pages staff writer.
Back to Home page. |
