An alert reader (OK it was our own Sean Robinson) spotted a funny entry on the Washington Secretary of State's blog, "From Our Corner":

We’ve had lots of questions about the R-71 petitions, which by law are required to include 114-pages of Senate Bill 5688 text with the petition on just one sheet of paper. Just how did sponsors manage that one?

To see the photographic answer, click here.

Two of the state's top political scientists and a doctoral candidate took a look at Pierce County's ranked choice voting experiment and found it to be a pretty fair system.

Loren Collingwood, working on his doctoral degree at the University of Washington, said he wanted to study Pierce County's 2008 election because it is one of the biggest jurisdictions in the country to use RCV. With the help of Todd Donovan at Western and Matt Barreto at the UW, Collingwood wanted to see if the results were fair and accurate and whether the system produced aberrations compared to traditional elections.

The conclusion: "Overall, RCV has similar voting patterns as exhibited in traditional primary-general election contests. "That is, RCV does an effective job of simulating both a primary and general in one election."

In other words, RCV isn't as weird as opponents claim it is. Confusion – and a failure of some voters to vote in county races – will fall off as voters become more familiar with it, the trio concluded.

I try to analyze the analysis in my column Thursday. You can read the entire report here.

Board of Building Appeals seeks two members
The Board of Building Appeals currently needs to fill two positions. The board strives for diverse expertise among its members to help the Public Works Building and Land Use Division with the adoption of new codes, providing advice and hearing appeals. The board members serve 5-year terms and members remain on the board until they are replaced.

At this time, there are seven members on the board including an architect, a structural engineer, a mechanical engineer, a general contractor, a plumbing contractor, a fire protection engineer and a member who represents the Building Owners and Manager’s Association.

The board is seeking candidates with construction-related credentials, specifically someone who is a general contractor, and someone to represent a building management association or construction association. 

Board of Building Appeals members are appointed by the Tacoma City Council and meet depending on whether there is a need. To apply, contact Cindy Leingang, Mayor’s Office, (253) 594-7848, or visit www.cityoftacoma.org. To ensure consideration, applications are due by August 12, 2009.

Pierce County officials haven’t finished a second round of 2009 budget cuts. But already the County Council is thinking about 2010’s budget.

The council has drafted a list of 20 “principles” that will guide development of next year’s budget. The list is still in draft form, but here are some highlights:

1. Job creation and economic development are the County Council’s highest priorities.

3. Polling sites will remain open.

4. There will be no additional use of the unreserved general fund balance in 2010.

6. No miscellaneous current expense items to outside groups other than those that are essential to public health and safety (i.e., domestic violence and senior centers).

19. Eliminate or drastically reduce expenditures on recreational programming.

You can download a PDF copy of all 20 principles here.

Last week I wrote about how two little words – “up to” – helped undermine sign code enforcement

in Pierce County. Those words appear in budget ordinances authorizing the county’s public works department to spend up to $168,000 last year and 100,000 this year to collect commercial signs illegally placed in public rights of way.

Despite that direction from the council, public works halted most sign code enforcement last fall, citing questions about how the law should be enforced. Now public works officials say full-time sign code enforcement isn’t a top priority, given recent budget cuts. And public works director Brian Ziegler contends the “up to” language gives the department wiggle room to spend less (or none) of the money on sign enforcement.

Now it looks like the County Council has come up with two magic words that might help revive sign code enforcement.

A budget ordinance pending before the council rewrites the budget provision to require public works to spend “at least $50,000, but no more than $100,000” on sign code enforcement (italics are mine). That will require public works to spend a minimum amount on sign enforcement.

The council approved a budget amendment including the new language yesterday. It’s scheduled to take final action on the budget ordinance next Tuesday.