Angry that the county cut its rank and file, the King County Corrections Guild – the jail guards’ union – drafted an initiative that would cut the county council by four members, paring it from 13 to nine.

The guild hooked up with “Initiatives R Us” mastermind Tim Eyman in order to get Initiative 18 passed. In May 2003, I-18 supporters turned in more than enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot, over 70,000.

But the King County Prosecutor’s Office filed a suit with King County Superior Court to halt the initiative, saying it violated county and state laws.

In June 2003, the court ruled in the county’s favor. A judge’s decision blocked I-18. The judge said the initiative exceeded the power given to citizens’ initiatives by the state constitution.

The guild was not satisfied. They took the issue to the state Supreme Court. In September 2003, the Supreme Court concluded voters can initiate charter amendments. The decision of the superior court was reversed.

That month, according to a Metropolitan King County Council press release dated Sept. 29, 2003, the council voted to place the charter amendment on the ballot in November 2004. If voters approved, council boundaries would be redrawn to create nine new districts by the end of 2004. It could turn out that some council members would have to run against other current council members to determine who represents a district.

But wait. In July of this year, the county council voted 9-4 to change the language of the ballot measure, postponing the first elections based on the new districts from 2005 to 2007. They also voted to include language in the ballot measure that would reduce membership of three regional committees: policy, transportation and water quality. Each committee currently consists of 12 members of both the King County Council and elected officials from Seattle and the suburban cities, and in one case, the special water districts. All three were created as part of the Regional Governance Summits in 1991-92 to give cities “a voice and a vote” on key issues before the county. The new language would reduce the size of the committees from 12 to 6.

A council press release announcing the technical fixes to I-18 stated Eyman’s initiative limited the entire redistricting process to six weeks, a process that normally takes up to a full year. As for reducing membership on the three regional committees, the council’s press release stated the reduction was merely addressing inconsistencies the charter amendment would create in the three regional committees.

Council Chair Larry Phillips (District 4) called the size of the council and the three regional committees “inextricably linked.”

It was reported even the Corrections Guild, which sponsored I-18, endorsed the council’s language changes.

But hold on. Early in August, Eyman et al. filed a lawsuit against the county council asserting council changes made to I-18 undermined the integrity of the measure.

King County Councilman Rob McKenna (District 6), who voted against the council’s language changes, said, “The actions of this council have substantially disenfranchised the 70,000 citizens who signed petitions requesting King County to put Initiative 18 on the ballot.”

Councilman David Irons (District 12) said this about cutting membership on the regional committees: “These regional committees have been the best arena for representatives from suburban cities to be able to participate in regional government. With only six members each, and three of them from the King County Council, the 38 suburban cities will have only two voices to represent them on each panel. This is unbalanced representation … .”

Last week, Eyman and his group of plaintiffs prevailed. A Snohomish County judge upheld the original language of Initiative 18 that called for the reduction of the county council from 13 to 9 members, with redistricting to take place by the end of this year and first elections with the new districts to take place in 2005.

And so, King County citizens will have a chance to vote on whether to reduce the county council by four on Nov. 2.

Chairman Phillips said in a phone conversation, “You will lose representation (if the council is cut). The rural area is represented by three council members now. It could be represented by one or two, depending upon how the new districts are drawn.”

He said the amount of money the county will save by cutting four members of the council is “budget dust.”

“Access to government will be minimal,” he said.

Right now the council represents a wide spectrum of political views, he said. Everyone gets along. Citizens get good representation. The council is a good working legislative body, he said.

“Reducing the council will increase the power of those who remain and decrease the power of citizens,” Phillips said.

He also said a council reduction would shift the power to the county executive and to the county’s bureaucracy.

Councilwoman Kathy Lambert (District 3) agreed. Shrinking the council would give the county executive more power. She, too, believes the savings would be insignificant. There is no way a councilperson and their staff could handle 60,000 more constituents, she said.

“We’re running pretty lean now,” said Lambert. “We’d have to hire staff back. And we’d have more unelecteds making decisions.”

Lambert said Eyman staged a rally on the 10th Floor of the Courthouse where council members work. She said he called the council “a Cadillac council” that never works, that never gets anything done.

“We were so busy, we missed the show,” said Lambert. “We were working through lunch.”

Lambert said she told Eyman that if he wanted to change policy, he should run for the Legislature and see the effects of his endeavors. Take a little responsibility for who you’re hurting, she told him.

“He doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” said Lambert. “And he doesn’t really care. That’s what bothers me. I can get along. I can get another job. I worry about the extra 60,000 people who won’t get enough representation.”

Councilman Irons is all in favor of letting voters decide the council’s size. He said, “… We are demonstrating our accountability to the voters, in allowing them to decide whether (cutting the size of the council) is a good way to help the county save money.”

Councilmember Steve Hammond (District 9) said, “The citizens who brought forward this initiative have sent a very strong message. The county tax burden has become unacceptable, especially to our most vulnerable citizens. This measure will give voters an opportunity to make a decision that could cut the size and cost of county government at the highest level.”

Unincorporated King County resident Maxine Keesling said, “As far as shrinking the council, I’m all for it – as long as we get to keep our three Republican council members who are so good for landowners here in the rural area. If shrinking the council meant they would take away our three people who sympathize with us, then, of course, I would be against it. I would ‘loooove’ to get rid of a lot of those Seattle council members who don’t have any rural areas in their district at all.

“As one of them said at a recent Parks meeting down at Marymoor, ‘I vote for my constituents and my constituents are not rural landowners.’ … In other words, it’s really and truly a case of majority rules, and as far as the council is concerned, the majority is city people and that’s not fair.”

Neither the King County Executive nor the Governor is taking a position on the topic of reducing the size of the council.