Clark County voters will decide on three charter amendments in the Nov. 5 election.
The Clark County Council unanimously approved putting the amendments on the ballot at its July 25 meeting. (Councilor Michelle Belkot was absent.)
Unlike prior charter amendments, which were proposed by the now-defunct Charter Review Commission, these three amendments were proposed by county staff and elected officials.
Amendment 16
Voters will decide whether to increase the salary for county sheriff, currently John Horch. If approved, the measure would put the sheriff’s salary at 8 percent higher than the highest step of the undersheriff’s salary range. That’s an increase of more than 50 percent over the current salary of $156,396 per year. The amendment would set the sheriff’s salary at $19,764 per month or $237,168 per year.
During the July council meeting, County Manager Kathleen Otto said the current salary, like those for other elected officials, is set by the charter and is adjusted annually by the Washington State Salary Commission. She said the county has been working to bring salaries up to par with other jurisdictions, especially law enforcement pay. However, elected officials have been exempt from those increases.
“I think this is an issue of being fair and equitable and making sure the top elected law enforcement officer in the county, in the sheriff’s office, is paid an appropriate salary,” council Chair Gary Medvigy said during the meeting.
There seems to be little, if any, public opposition to the amendment. No statements opposing the measure were filed with the county elections office for the voters’ pamphlet, though a “for” statement was provided.
Amendment 17
The last effort to update the county’s district boundaries in 2021 — following the release of federal Census data — was fraught with difficulties.
The matter eventually landed in court, although it was the county council rather than the redistricting committee that eventually approved a new map in May 2022.
County Auditor Greg Kimsey said Amendment 17 is intended to improve that process.
“The redistricting process last time was more difficult than it should have been,” Kimsey said. “(The amendment) makes it difficult for the committee to modify what the redistricting master has come up with.”
If approved, the amendment will require the county council to appoint a redistricting master to create the map, and specifies that person must be an employee in the Geographic Information Systems department with the required skills.
The county charter currently requires the redistricting committee to select a redistricting master “qualified by education, training and experience.”
Additionally, the committee would be able to change the map created by the redistricting master only if five members vote in favor.
“It should not be viewed as an opportunity to change the districts to favor or disfavor any elected official or any political party,” Kimsey said.
The amendment would increase the number of redistricting committee members from five to seven, and the council would no longer be required to select committee members from a list provided by the local Republican and Democratic parties.
Ridgefield resident Rob Anderson from ReformClarkCounty.com has been a vocal critic of two of the amendments, including Amendment 17. He said it is important that voters know where the measures originated.
“While I have no issue with the council’s authority to place these on the ballot, the sponsor of Amendments No. 17 and No. 18 is Auditor Greg Kimsey, not a representative group like the Charter Review Commission or even a proposal from council members,” Anderson said Thursday.
He said the amendment poses a serious threat to what should be a fair and democratic process.
“The current bipartisan structure ensures that both major political parties have representation, preserving balance,” Anderson said. “If Amendment No. 17 passes, the political party with the majority on the council will have the ability to stack the redistricting committee, eliminating any checks or input from the minority party.”
Kimsey said the county councilors are nonpartisan, so it makes sense to remove the political parties from the process of selecting redistricting committee members, who review only council districts, not state partisan districts. He also said the council has a lot of experience selecting committee members, and he doesn’t think the redistricting committee will be adversely affected by the change.
“The council has something like more than 30 committees. They do have a well-defined policy and practice when it comes informing the community about opportunities to serve on a committee and the process of selecting those committee members,” Kimsey said.
Amendment 18
The last of the three proposed amendments would change the county’s initiative process by requiring petitioners to get the estimated costs or expenses of the initiative from the county and include that information on the petition and ballot. That assessment would be done by the county budget office. Currently, only initiatives that require new or additional sources of revenue are required to include a recommended revenue source.
Additionally, the opinion issued by the prosecuting attorney’s office would be included on the petition and ballot.
Kimsey said the prosecuting attorney’s office is already required to provide an opinion as to whether an initiative is outside of the scope of what the constitution, laws and judicial opinions allow.
“The charter has always required the prosecuting attorney’s office to provide that opinion,” he said. “The only change is that the opinion would be on the initiative petition sheet, as well as the ballot.”
Lastly, signatures required for petitions that apply only to unincorporated areas of the county would be calculated using the same method as petitions for the entire county.
Anderson said Amendment 18 will expand the auditor’s role and influence over initiatives. He said the changes will also make it more difficult for citizens to use the initiative process to address important issues.
“The initiative process is the only means of self-governance available when officials fail to act,” he said. “If Amendment No. 18 passes, it will give government officials more control over what can be put forward.”
Anderson said changing the limitations section of the initiative process would let a few individuals influence the outcome of petitions, and that opinions or financial estimates included can’t be challenged.
“This opens the door to voter manipulation,” he said. “Courts have discouraged pre-vote legal review of initiatives because of the risk of undermining grassroots efforts.”
Allowing officials to add “potentially biased opinions and estimates” could keep citizen-led initiatives from succeeding, Anderson said.
Clark County is one of only seven counties in the state that allow citizen-led lawmaking through the initiative process. But it’s still a fairly new process for the county, one that supporters say is in need of fine-tuning. Kimsey said this amendment is aimed at improving, not hindering, the initiative process.
“This amendment does not in any way whatsoever make it any more difficult for someone to propose an initiative or get it on the ballot,” Kimsey said.
