Clark County commissioners have spent enough time and money studying a fourth possible trip down the home-rule charter road. Nothing even approaching a broad public outcry has been heard for changing the way our county is governed. It’s time to abandon this solution in search of a problem and move on to more crucial issues, such as ushering Clark County through and beyond the Great Recession.
Commissioners will consider the matter again today. The correct decision would be to call the extensive research (including six lightly attended public meetings) fully completed and drop the issue that local voters have rejected three times in 20 years. What commissioners might do instead is require supporters to meet a threshold of proof of community support through the petition process. Supporters would have to receive signatures from 10 percent of the number of voters who participated in the most recent general election (14,904 signatures). Either way, the commissioners should suspend any attention by themselves and other county employees on changes that only a few people seem to want.
The types of reform mentioned most frequently by local activists are giving residents initiative and referendum powers (rejected by more than 52 percent of voters in 2002), and electing county commissioners by district (currently they are elected by district in the primary but appear on ballots countywide in the general election). The status quo of requiring all three of the county’s most powerful politicians to be held accountable to voters countywide is an excellent system. Changing it to what the few activists want would create three fiefdoms, with each sovereign servant ignoring the needs (and, especially, the voters) of two-thirds of the county.
Another bad idea is the possibility of expanding the number of county commissioners from three to five; almost 62 percent of voters shot down that notion in 2002.