Just weeks after being sworn into office, Eileen Quiring needs to be reminded of her role as Clark County chair. As previous Chair Marc Boldt said of the position, “I believe you need to be as nonpolitical as you can be.”
Quiring has violated that ethos by weighing in on candidates to fill an open position for county councilor from District 4. She used a personal email account to message precinct committee officers who will have a say in the nominating process, expressing support for one of the declared candidates.
To be clear, Quiring has every right to express her beliefs using a personal email; if she used county resources to provide an endorsement, it would be a different story. Still, she danced along the edge of that ethical issue by identifying herself as county chair in the text of the email. Even if Quiring had avoided that misstep, the action brings to mind an old axiom: Just because you can do something does not mean that you should, and Quiring should have avoiding weighing in at this step of the process.
Quiring, a Republican, won election as county chair in November, vacating her position as District 4 representative. Under that scenario, the state constitution calls for the central committee of the county Republican Party — a committee that includes the precinct committee officers — to nominate three candidates to fill the position. Those names will be forwarded to the sitting council members, who will choose one to fill the vacancy.
When contacted by The Columbian, the other three current council members all declined to comment on the candidates. John Blom, a Republican who represents District 3, summed up the issue by saying, “There are a number of very capable people who have applied, and I believe my duty is to give each fair consideration.”
Indeed. That is the proper approach for any member of the council, and it is even more essential for the council chair. Instead, Quiring has expressed a preference and attempted to influence the process, reinforcing concerns about her ability to equitably represent county residents. If her preferred candidate is selected for the council, it will smack of cronyism and partisanship that has hampered county government in recent years; if her preferred candidate is not selected, it will leave her to work alongside somebody she clearly would rather not be working with. Either way, residents of Clark County are the losers.
During the election for county chair, Quiring addressed questions about her ability to engage with others and to consider differing viewpoints. She insisted that would not be an issue, saying, “I would want to get along with people” and “the misconception that I can’t work with people is unfair.”
Quiring’s political beliefs — she is a strong conservative — are not the issue here; we would have the same complaint about a lack of decorum from a Democrat. But there are questions about her willingness to work collaboratively rather than clinging to dogma, and about her ability to effectively lead. Unfortunately, Quiring’s decision to endorse a candidate undermines her claims of wanting to get along with people rather than returning the council to a quagmire of contentiousness.
That, perhaps, is the most important issue. From 2012-16, the Clark County Board of Commissioners (and now county council) was marked by infighting and pugnaciousness, and local residents are eager to avoid a return to those dark days. In order to move the county forward, Quiring must strive to be as nonpolitical as possible.
