Clark County Charter Commission

What is the Clark County Charter?

The Clark County Charter is the governing document for the county government here in Clark County. In an event in September, Clark County Auditor Greg Kimsey called it the county’s bylaws (link to video of this below in resources). I have others call the Charter the county’s constitution.

The Charter is split into 11 articles that outline the basics of the county government. That includes the power of the county government, the structure of the county government, the separation of powers between the branches of the county government, how elections, initiatives, and referenda are conducted, and the rules that the county government needs to follow. The charter itself is not terribly long, and you can go ahead and read it. Most of the charter is clear and straight forward, but there are places where it is not clear and I do think that should be one of the Charter Review Commission’s priorities.

What is the Charter Commission?

The Charter Review Commission is written into the Charter itself and is a body that is elected to review and propose changes to the Charter. The current charter says a Commission of fifteen (15) members (three (3) for each council district) will be elected every five (5) years. The Commission will operate for up to two (2) years, though the Commission can choose to end its work early. The Commission will then organize itself as a body to internally review the charter, hold public meetings, receive public feedback, and discuss the adoption of the amendments to the charter that will be placed on the ballot for the voters to approve or reject.

What can the Charter Commission do?

The Charter Commission’s role is to propose amendments to the Clark County Charter that will be placed on a ballot for voters to approve or reject.

The commissioners are not paid for their time or service. The commission will be given a budget by the County to conduct its work.

The previous Charter Commission organized itself into committees to review specific subject areas and then collected information on those subject areas, wrote up proposed amendments, sought public feedback, and then finalized the amendments they wished to propose. There is not required or set procedure in place for how the commission does its work.

What can’t the Charter Commission do?

The Charter Commission cannot propose or adopt ordinances for the county. The Charter Commission cannot adopt Charter Amendments, it can only propose amendments to the voters.

In addition to what it cannot do, there is a lot of discussion around what the Charter Commission should not do. It does not seem clear to me that the Charter Commission cannot propose amendments that are in conflict with state law, though it is also seems clear to me that it should not propose amendments that would be struck down in the courts.

One of the issues I have added to my campaign is restraint. The Charter Commission should show restraint and not try to set policy through the charter. I think there are both legal, practical, and values based reasons to oppose setting policy into the charter. Legally, I think setting policy opens the county up to more lawsuits that they may lose wasting everyone’s time and money. Practically, policy should be set by the county legislative branch so that changes can be enacted easily if there are problems. And Philosophically (or by values), I believe that a Charter should be limited to the structure of government and the role of the Charter is to set the rules by which conflict, disagreement, and problems are solved and not be the place to solve those problems.

Resources:

Clark County Charter

Video from the League of Women Voters Event on the Clark County Charter

FairVote Washington Endorsement

I have been endorsed by FairVote Washington for the Clark County Charter Review Commission!

Label that says:
Fair Vote Washington
Democracy Campaign
Endorsed

If you don’t know about FairVote Washington they are an organization dedicated to trying to improve our election system by adopting procedures that do a better job of translating votes into seats (by more accurately reflecting the preferences of the voters). They in particular advocate for the adoption of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) here in Washington.

You might be asking then: What is my stance on Ranked Choice Voting?

I think the election system of single-member districts (SMD) along with plurality winners (where candidates can win races with less than 50% +1 of the vote) is a bad way to go from votes to seats in government.
- Allowing plurality winners in single-member districts means that elected officials are often elected with the support of less than half of the population and that harms the legitimacy of their position and democracy overall. But in a closely divided community, there is often no candidate who can earn majority support.
- Single-member districts mean that there is only one winner per election. This means that you almost always maximize the number of people who vote against the final winning candidate and are not represented. This limits the number of voices in government and often leaves people feeling like they don’t matter if they are part of a large and persistent minority voting bloc.
Washington has addressed this with the Top-Two Primary, which eliminates the possibility of a plurality winner in a race by eliminating choices.
Ranked Choice Voting does address the problem of plurality winners well (as do several other reform options that seem fine to me, like STAR voting). And I think it does it better than the top-two primary because it allows for more candidates to be included on the general election ballot when turnout is higher therefore giving more people a say.
Ranked Choice Voting does not address the problems associated with single-member districts.
- You can use Ranked Choice Voting along with other reforms to address both problems like the City of Portland is doing with having Multi-member districts and Ranked Choice Voting (or more accurately, Single Transferable Vote).

I would support attempts to improve representation in our county government by adopting reforms like Ranked Choice Voting and the adoption of multi-member districts. I think these reforms would improve representation on the county council.

However, the last Charter Review Commission did propose adopting Ranked Choice Voting and that amendment failed. So I would hesitate to present the same idea to the voters again without evidence of a significant change either in public opinion, state law, or if the amendment were substantially different from the one that failed.

I do personally think the Clark County Council would better represent the people with multi-member districts that use some method of proportional representation like ranked-choice voting/single-transferable vote. I will be entering the review process open to hearing other perspectives on why it might not be the right time or place for this kind of reform.

Issues

I am seeking to prioritize the values of Representation, Public Involvement, and Accountability in this campaign and if elected on the Clark County Charter Review Commission.

Representation

I believe a key value in democratic governments is that of representation. Every democratic government should try and take the views of the public as a whole and translate them into policy. If elected to the Clark County Charter Review Commission, I will seek to review how well the current system of government represents the whole public and if there are reforms we could propose to improve that system of representation.

Public Involvement

Our county government should strive to include and consult with the public as it considers its work. This is true of the Charter Review Commission and County Council. The Charter Review Commission should be dedicated to an ongoing process of collecting and considering public feedback, and if elected I will be an advocate for an approach that centers the work on public engagement.

I believe the Charter Review Commission should spend some of its time and effort considering ways to improve the mechanisms of public involvement used by Clark County.

Accountability

No democratic system of government can function properly without effective tools for changing the direction of policy and government if the people are dissatisfied. I believe a challenge we face is having unclear assignment of responsibility. The Charter Review Commission should consider ways to make the accountability mechanisms for the county government clear to elected officials and the public.

Restraint

Initially, in my campaign, I did not include restraint as a value. I now believe that was a mistake. The Charter Review Commission is a limited body that exists to review the Clark County Charter within the scope of state law. I do not want to see the Charter Review Commission attempt to legislate through the charter. The county charter should set the baseline for who is elected and hired and how decisions are made in the county and leave the setting of policy, priorities, and budgets to the county council.

If we go looking, it isn’t hard to find places that enacted rules and limits on a legislative body to force a specific policy outcome that in turn created damaging and distorting unintended consequences.