Again, Clark County residents witness a group of unspecified size — but obviously small — trying to fix a system of government that is not broken. And because county commissioners apparently haven’t heard the three “No” messages from voters over the past 20 years, another election of freeholders is set for Nov. 8.
Here we go again, wandering down the home-rule path, wondering if it’s time to tinker with county government. This home-rule process will determine if Clark County will leave the state’s uniform three-commissioner model and tailor our own system. It’ll cost county taxpayers about $100,000, and remember, it’s not just one election. After freeholders (volunteers who have enough time on their hands to micro-analyze government) are elected, in a couple of years or so their recommendations will go on yet another ballot.
Taxpayers should have at least three major concerns with this wild goose chase. First, who are these people who last week convinced commissioners to put freeholder elections on the ballot? A Jan. 8, 2010, Columbian story in this newspaper described the home-rule advicates and noted “some of whose members share inspiration and language with U.S. Rep. Ron Paul’s ‘Campaign for Liberty’ and broadcaster Glenn Beck’s ‘9-12 project.’ ”
Second, how many people are in this group? How representative are they of the community at large? There’s no way of knowing. What is clear, though, is that there has been virtually no broad public outcry to reform county government.
Granted, flaws frequently are seen in the county’s elected officials. Take last week, for example, when County Commissioner Tom Mielke wondered why Vancouver residents should be allowed to help draft a county charter since rural residents don’t have a voice in how Vancouver is governed. That’s like asking why Seattle residents should vote on a governor since statewide residents have no say in electing a Seattle mayor. The truth is, just as Seattle residents are state residents, Vancouver residents are county residents. Mielke doesn’t seem to understand this.
Reformists would present a stronger argument if they plopped down a bunch of petitions before the commissioners and proclaimed, “Behold how many of your constituents want this reform.” But no, all they present is a grievance from the same few people, and for all of this, county taxpayers will have to pay.
Third, the poor timing of this matter cannot be ignored. A quick triage should’ve led commissioners to put this matter near the bottom of the priority list. The demands of a lingering economic catastrophe should occupy almost all of their work time.
No one knows what ideas the freeholders will dig up. Among reforms put before voters in 2002 were expanding the number of commissioners from three to five (rejected by 61.9 percent of voters), giving county voters the power of initiative and referendum (rejected by 52.9 percent) and having commissioners elected by districts in the general election (currently that occurs only in the primary, a good system because it guards against a balkanized county government.)
Another troubling proposal that did not pop up in 2002 but could this time is changing several elected county officials (such as clerk, treasurer, auditor and assessor) to appointed positions. Taking this power out of the hands of the people would be a bad idea; much better to have voters and not politicians deciding who gets these jobs.
County commissioners should have agreed that now is not the time to get distracted by trying to fix something that’s not broken. Too bad there can’t be another option for voters on the Nov. 8 ballot: “Furgetaboutit!”
