Decisions to alter management of the Clark County Jail ignore the parameters of good governance — transparency, prudence and thoughtfulness. County councilors and County Manager Kathleen Otto have acted injudiciously in hastily approving a new county department and hiring somebody to oversee it.
The result generates more questions than it answers: How long has this been in the works? Why was it bereft of public input? Why is an incoming sheriff not involved? And have county officials learned nothing about the dangers of cronyism?
In the process, county leaders have demonstrated carelessness that should outrage residents.
Barely a week ago, Otto publicly floated the idea of creating a new county department of Jail Services. The plan was to separate management of the jail from the sheriff’s office, an idea that has merit but requires thoughtful consideration and transparency about the costs involved. As The Columbian argued editorially, “Much additional information should be provided before creating a new county department. The proposal raises too many questions to allow for a hasty decision.”
In particular, it would be prudent to allow a new sheriff — who will be elected in November — to provide input. Unlike the county manager, who will oversee the new department and is tasked with hiring its executives, the sheriff is elected by the people of Clark County. Because the jail comprises a hefty chunk of the county budget, the public should be allowed to provide input regarding its oversight and management.
Yet council members opted for hastiness over deliberation in creating a new department. That is disappointing; the decision might be best for the people of Clark County, but the urgency poorly serves the public.
Now, Otto has grossly compounded the error perpetrated by the county council. On Monday, just one week after the idea of a new department first became public knowledge, she announced the hiring of David Shook to run the new department.
Shook is well-qualified. He has spent the past two years with the Clark County Sheriff’s Office after about 25 years in law enforcement in Oregon. He ran for sheriff in a three-person primary this summer but did not advance to the general election.
Yet processes, rather than qualifications, are the concern. The lack of deliberation in the hiring has the stench of cronyism and backroom deals, generating doubts that must be fully answered by Otto.
Indeed, the county manager has the right to hire department heads. But there are questions about the timeline involved. For example, would Otto have proposed a new department if Shook were still in the running for sheriff? Why would she move to reduce the sheriff’s duties only after Shook lost the primary, and then hire him to fulfill those duties?
The fact is that voters recently said that Shook is not their choice to run the county jail. That declaration has been ignored in an offensively opaque process.
Officials should remember the saga of Don Benton, who was hired to head a county department in a blatant act of cronyism, lost his job when the department was eliminated, and subsequently won a lawsuit against the county. Clark County also made a payout to a candidate for the job who was not allowed to apply. The lesson: A lack of due deliberation can be costly while besmirching the integrity of county government.
That lesson has been disregarded in an egregious series of moves that have violated the dictums of good governance.
