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.
