When a group of citizen freeholders designed Clark County’s voter-approved charter five years ago, they wanted to make sure it wouldn’t drive up the cost of running the government. Now, after three years of operating with the new charter, it appears they’ve accomplished that goal, at least when it comes to salaries of the council and the county’s top executive.
But there are other variables that could drive up the cost of government under either system.
“We did do a lot of intentional homework to make sure that the system itself would not be more expensive,” said Nan Henriksen, a former Camas mayor who chaired the group.
In 2013, Clark County Board of Freeholders, a group of 15 individuals, met to begin writing a county charter, the basic guiding document for county government. The charter was approved by voters the next year. The county spent the following two years implementing it, changing the county’s three-member commission to a five-member council that would have a reduced role — and lower salaries. The charter also replaced the county administrator with a manager who would take over the county’s executive functions and answer to the county council.
So is county government less costly under the new charter?
Numbers provided by Clark County Human Resources show that Henriksen is correct, at least when it comes to what councilors and top executive are paid. The numbers show that the county’s three commissioners — who had legislative and executive powers — were each paid a salary of $102,228, for a combined $306,684. Under the charter, four councilors — who have only legislative power — are paid $53,000. The council chair is paid $66,250, bringing the total to $278,250.
When they were crafting the charter, Henriksen said the freeholders looked at how the county’s executive and staff could drive up costs. She said that the freeholders considered having an elected executive, similar to what King County has. But she said that an elected executive would have to do high-level politicking as part of his or her job and would probably seek to hire a larger staff to help with governing. The council, not wanting to be outmatched, would also seek to hire more staff, adding to the expense of county government, she said.
“That’s where the expense comes in,” said Marc Boldt, a freeholder who was later elected as the first council chair under the charter.
The county has been without a permanent county manager since the council suddenly fired Mark McCauley last May. The county council has selected two finalists for the position and will interview them Tuesday.
Henriksen said the big variable that could make the charter form of government more expensive is how much the council decides to pay the next county manager.
“They could do that as commissioners, too,” she said. “So that’s the human factor.”
High-paying job
Before the county switched to the charter form of government, commissioners hired an administrator to assist with executive functions. According to The Columbian archives, Bill Barron, the longtime county administrator who retired in 2013, was paid $174,252 per year. McCauley took over for Barron and became the first county manager under the charter. At the time of his firing, he received an annual salary of $169,460.
Under the commission form of government, the salaries of the commissioners and Barron totaled $480,936. Under the charter, the salaries of McCauley and the council totaled $447,710.
The county has advertised an annual salary of $160,000 to $180,000 for its new manager, and Boldt has suggested offering even more to attract top candidates. The high end of that salary range pencils out to a total administrative salary cost of $458,250, which is still less than the county commissioners.
Henriksen said county government could become more expensive under the charter if the council decides to hire more staff.
In 2016, McCauley reorganized his office, laying off Peter Silliman, a county policy analyst who was paid $71,388 annually. In December, the county council hired Lindsey Shafar as a senior policy analyst at an annual salary of $90,840.
But Boldt pointed out that councilors get a $700 monthly vehicle allowance. For five councilors, that pencils out to $42,000 annually, pushing the total expenses of the council slightly higher than the commission. Benefits provided to councilors also push that number higher.
However, Boldt said the county commission had four staff members when he served as a commissioner. Now, he said, the council office has one policy analyst. He said the council considered hiring more than one analyst but settled on one to keep costs down.
Of course, there are many other jobs in Clark County — about 1,570, according to the county’s Human Resources website — and other expenses. In recent years, the county has faced a structural deficit where its costs — primarily salaries and benefits — have outpaced revenue.
Silliman also served as a freeholder and ended up opposing the charter, partially because of what he said is its potential to make government costlier. He said the charter separates councilors from county operations, which he said drives “more government solutions and government growth.
“Generally speaking, government solutions are not very cost-effective solutions,” he said. “Bureaucrats want to eliminate risk and there’s a price.”
Tracy Wilson, another freeholder, said he also voted against the charter, but not because of its cost. Instead, he voted against it because of concerns with its checks and balances, as well as concerns that some of its language wasn’t properly vetted.
“I don’t think that either form of government in and of itself dictates that it’s going to be more expensive, frankly,” he said.
When asked if the charter lent itself to more costly government solutions, Boldt noted that he had served as a commissioner and councilor.
“I can’t tell any difference,” he said.
