Washblog

This non-governmental organization, that opened 13 polling locations for 12 hours, that taxes our property to the tune of roughly 6 million per year, that has 13 full-time employees, only drew 2,757 voters from a population of 1.8 million??

That is ridiculous.

I'd also like to point out that their Annual Report of Accomplishments (http://www.kingcd.org/abo_adm_ann.html)is completely blank.

This is a waste of an organization.  The $6 million they cost the county could be far better used to pay teachers, improve social services, or just stay in the pockets of citizens.

The King Conservation District should be ashamed of wasting time and dollars to hold an election in which fewer than 3,000 people bothered to participate.

The Conservation District is the new poster-child for waste.  Disband the Conservation District.

by abelenky on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:50:15 AM PST

---

advertise its elections. I believe they also claim that they can't afford to pay their share of the costs if placed on the November general election ballot.  Don't quote me on this.  I will try calling them to get statement about this.

Also, if you go out to their website and pull up its Board of Supervisor Meeting Minutes for December 30, 2008, it states that KCD is "designating Election Trust as the Election Officer." and that Election Trust is "continuing to work on the exact polling locations."  

The Minutes set forth some criteria for conducting the election. They state, "The Board's intent is to designate neutral polling locations and provide a fair election...The Board decided the following criteria: equal access to locations for all, free parking where possible, equal distribution of locations in rural and urban communities, equity in distances between locations, equal time access at all locations, and the locations should not be seats of government or power wherever possible...Election Trust will take on the financial costs for polling locations...Election Trust contract shall not exceed $50,000."

So, here we have a private entity as the "Election Officer" of a public election.  Not only did they administer the election, but this private company also counted the votes using private, proprietary software (at least to the best of my knowledge it is proprietary.)  

Election Trust is trying to build legitimacy for Internet Voting.  The WA State Legislature recently sacked two bills that would have allowed WA Secretary of State Sam Reed to develop an Internet Voting scheme for overseas and military voters. Unfortunately, the reasons stated for allowing these bills to die was NOT because computer security experts hired by the U.S. Department of Defense concluded that Internet voting is insecure, and that Internet voting is not transparent or publicly verifiable, but for fiscal reasons.

The low turnout was not due to an unwillingness to participate, it was due to the fact that most citizens had no clue there was an election being held.  This is ridiculous.

by raincity calling on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:06:33 PM PST

---

Conservation Districts are mandated under the RCW ... that's its justification for existence.

As pointed out by Richard Pope (I think) in the HorsesAss comment threads, Conservation Districts are required to hold their elections in the first quarter of the year.  I can't copy from the King Conservation District's FAQ pages, but on p.2 it states that:

• their election process is defined under RCW 89.08, not the standard process in title 29
• their election must take place in the first quarter of the year
• they ran a much more extensive process than was required (by law, they need only have one polling place, open for two hours)

You're complaining about how pathetically low was the voter turnout.  The King Conservation District begs to differ.  Their (remarkably illiterate ... I count 3 obvious errors to go with the general noncomprehensibility) press release crows:

The total voter turnout marked more than doubled the highest turnout numbers in the last five years of King CD elections, according the Executive Director Jeffrey Possinger.

"These elections have been held since 1949 and the unprecendented turn-out this year is a reflection of the increased number of voting centers as well as the higher profile we have taken in recent years because of our voluntary conservation and stewardship efforts with private landowners," said Possinger.

You're only young once, but you can be immature forever -- Larry Andersen
Blogging at Peace Tree Farm

by N in Seattle on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 11:31:01 AM PST

---

I've been reading the RCW's regarding Conservation Districts, and found this:

RCW 89.08.130
Each voter shall vote in the polling place nearest the voter's residence.

I think the King Conservation District violated this portion when they set up 13 polling locations, and let us each vote at any location.

One potential path to dissolving the District is to remove their funding as specified in RCW 89.08.400(5)

The special assessments for a conservation district ... shall not be collected ... if ... a petition has been filed with the county legislative authority objecting to the imposition of such special assessments, ... signed by at least twenty percent of the owners of land that would be subject to the special assessments to be imposed for a conservation district.

by abelenky on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 11:32:51 AM PST

---