Clark County councilors are playing politics with public safety, employing tactics that poorly serve our community and exacerbate a tense relationship with the city of Vancouver.
In July, the Vancouver City Council unanimously agreed to request an increase to funding for the city’s police department. “Public safety has consistently been a top issue for the community,” Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle said. “This measure refers the first of a series of police services funding measures to meet the growing and changing demand for public safety services in Vancouver.”
Proposition 4, which was placed on the November ballot, requested a five-year increase to the property tax levy. The increase would fund up to 80 full-time sworn police officers and 36 nonsworn police positions, form a traffic enforcement camera program, expand the Homeless Assistance and Resources Team and upgrade equipment.
The proposition was defeated in this month’s election, with 52 percent of voters in opposition.
In the run-up to the election, The Columbian’s Editorial Board offered tepid support for the measure. While acknowledging the need for increased police staffing, we also recognized that the measure would pose a significant burden for taxpayers. Its defeat was disappointing but understandable.
But what is not understandable is subterfuge by Clark County officials that helped to undermine Proposition 4.
On Oct. 24 — 12 days before ballots were due — The Columbian reported that “local criminal justice officials sounded the alarm Tuesday at a Clark County Council work session over what the passage of Vancouver’s Proposition 4 … could mean for what they say is already a strained system.” Clark County Manager Kathleen Otto said increased policing in the city would require extra staff for a justice system that falls under the purview of the county.
Considering that it arrived more than three months after the introduction of Proposition 4 and shortly before the election, the county’s declaration was lamentable. As Vancouver City Councilor Erik Paulsen said: “It’s not only unfortunate that the action was taken, but the timing of the action is especially egregious. And I think it speaks very poorly to the partnership and collaboration between the city and the county.”
Now, county councilors have compounded that action by considering their own request to increase funding for law enforcement. They might place a measure on the Feb. 11 special election ballot to fund 30 new deputies for the Clark County Sheriff’s Office, along with an expansion to the court system.
“Public safety is our No. 1 priority, and we are decades behind,” Council Chair Gary Medvigy said. “We need to take a stand and … communicate this narrative with (the public), the need with them, and see how they choose in February.”
To summarize, Clark County councilors expressed concern about a request in front of Vancouver voters, which might or might not have helped defeat the measure. They then moved to formulate their own, similar request adding additional funding for the courts. Although the Clark County ballot measure would go before a different set of voters, the actions create conflict between the needs of city residents and those outside the boundaries of Vancouver.
Adequate law enforcement is not a zero-sum equation. When law enforcement is understaffed in one part of the county, it negatively impacts residents throughout the region. Rather than work in conjunction with city officials for the good of all, county councilors have poorly served constituents by treating the issue as a competition.
