Clark County plans to have its own legal staff review what some perceive as ambiguities in the home-rule charter voters approved last year, officials said Friday.
During its annual retreat meeting, county councilors discussed the ongoing transition to the new form of government spelled out in the charter. Acting County Manager Mark McCauley handed out copies of the charter with certain sections highlighted to show areas he believes are unclear or need further interpretation. McCauley and county councilors have raised charter-related questions in recent weeks, and now it appears the task of answering them will fall to the county’s Prosecuting Attorney’s Office.
Those opinions will be made publicly available as the county works through the process, McCauley said. And the county knows that many people are watching closely, he said.
“We’re acutely aware that if we interpret language a certain way, some people are going to agree with us and some people are not,” McCauley said. “We’re just going to do the best we can, and do what we believe is right.”
Among other changes, the charter will replace the three county commissioners with a five-member council, and shift executive authority to the county manager. Some of those changes, including the transfer of executive power, already took effect Jan. 1. That’s when the three county commissioners became councilors. McCauley, the former county administrator, became acting county manager.
Two additional councilors, including a county chair, will be elected this year, with the full five-member council seated in 2016.
The three current councilors, who all publicly opposed the charter before last November’s election, have raised questions about the document voters approved. Friday’s meeting included discussion about procedural requirements in the charter as one example.
The charter states that “a verbatim public record of each public meeting shall be kept.” Later in the same paragraph, the document states that written minutes must include a “summation of actions.” That led McCauley and others to wonder if the county’s current practices — recording audio and video of public meetings, but not exact written transcripts — comply.
The charter was written by an elected board of freeholders with guidance from the county’s legal staff. The former chair of that group, Nan Henriksen, said she “absolutely” expected questions to come up in its implementation.
“We didn’t want to micromanage,” Henriksen said. “If they’re confused by us not doing that, I think having the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and the county manager look into those things they are concerned are ambiguities makes a lot of sense.”
As for the question of how to document of public meetings, Henriksen said she doesn’t think the charter requires one specific type of record or another, given how technology evolves. “We certainly didn’t intend to dictate to them,” she said.
County councilors have all stressed that they intend to follow the wishes of voters. Councilor Tom Mielke reiterated Friday that the county should follow the charter “to the letter of the law.”
