<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Tuesday, March 19, 2024
March 19, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

In Our View: Yes on Home Rule Charter

In a county of nearly half a million people, 5 councilors would better represent public

The Columbian
Published:

There is no denying that a proposed new Clark County charter is on the ballot, in part, because many residents are dissatisfied with the current county commissioners. There also is no denying that the present state of county government should not be the sole factor that determines how citizens vote on the issue.

As Clark County residents consider whether to update the structure of county government, they should be careful to look to the future rather than react to present circumstances. And The Columbian believes that any prescient long-term vision for Clark County will lead to a “yes” vote on the Home Rule Charter, which is Proposition No. 1 on the November ballot.

As always, this is merely a suggestion, but in the end the issue comes down to logic. The default system of government for Washington’s 39 counties was established by the 1889 state constitution. At that time, Clark County had about 11,000 residents, and the notion that such a system can adequately serve a county of 440,000 doesn’t pass the logic test. No, this isn’t akin to altering the U.S. Constitution, as some opponents have suggested, apparently not realizing that the Constitution has been changed 17 times since the Bill of Rights. This is simply making use of a provision in the state constitution that allows for home rule, something that most of Washington’s heavily populated counties already have done.

That brings us to some of the specifics of the proposal — where, again, logic suggests support. Among other items, critics have noted that a three-person board prevents commissioners from discussing policy in private, because two of them would create a quorum. The proposed five-member council would allow two members to discuss policy behind closed doors. This, indeed, could be problematic, as The Columbian strongly supports open government. But concerns about two councilors discussing policy pale in comparison to the problems created by allowing two members to hijack the commission.

That is the current situation facing Clark County, and the near-lockstep actions of commissioners David Madore and Tom Mielke have highlighted the dangers of a two-person majority. Look at it this way: Should all city councils be reduced to three members? Should the U.S. Supreme Court eliminate six positions? Having five councilors in Clark County — with four of them representing specific districts — would increase diversity of opinion and would better represent the public.

Of course, citizens must be leery about changing the process because of a people problem. Regardless of how one feels about the ruling majority on the Board of Commissioners, consideration must be given to the future. In another decade or two, strident liberals might be the majority, and the benefits of a five-person council again would be evident.

And finally, the establishment of an appointed county manager is a nod to the inherent complexities of managing a county that has nearly a half-million people. It is important to note that the proposed charter specifies that this “shall not be construed as changing the relationship of the council members or other elected officials to their constituents.”

Undoubtedly, the proposed charter should and will face intense scrutiny. Change is difficult, and multi-layered change inevitably invites citizens to find fault with a single item and therefore reject the entire proposal. Because of that, we strongly encourage voters to read the proposal rather than rely on soundbites. And then we encourage them to vote “yes” for an idea that will help position Clark County to thrive well into the future.

Loading...