The Commission, made up of 15 commissioners who were elected in November 2025, met Wednesday evening to continue its review of proposed charter amendments ahead of its July deadline for deciding which measures will advance to the November ballot

Ken Vance, editor
Clark County Today

Members of the Clark County Charter Review Commission are growing increasingly frustrated with county staff regarding perceived overreach by elected county executives, specifically Auditor Greg Kimsey, who are reportedly seeking to influence the commission’s work.

Ann Donnelly, Charter Review Commission

Dorothy Gasque, Charter Review Commission

The Charter Review Commission, made up of 15 commissioners who were elected in November 2025, met Wednesday evening (June 3) to continue its review of proposed charter amendments ahead of its July deadline for deciding which measures will advance to the November ballot. Commissioners received public testimony, discussed several proposed amendments, approved scheduling decisions for future presentations, and voted to continue legal review work on a public safety proposal that has been deferred until 2027.

A significant portion of the meeting focused on ethics reform proposals, public safety amendments, outreach efforts, and preparations for upcoming public hearings and community town halls. Public testimony largely centered on ethics reform, government accountability, growth management, and term limits.

Amendment 26-26: Public Safety

Commissioner Ann Donnelly sponsored this amendment, which was co-sponsored by Commissioner Peter Silliman. It is designed to:

• Make law enforcement officers and the public safer​
• Fulfill the county’s paramount duty to public safety by enforcing the law, preserving the rights of all​
• Ultimately reduce crime, with its high economic and humanitarian costs through effective and visible law enforcement​
• Offer those impacted by homelessness, drug addiction, and mental illness a first step toward a better life through abundant officers on the street​
• Establish a permanent, independent, and quantifiable standard of staffing that the council shall maintain for the benefit of current and future residents

Donnelly reported that the committee voted to defer this to 2027. On Wednesday, she read a prepared statement and subsequent comments from fellow commissioners to express frustration regarding the perceived overreach by Kimsey.

Donnelly addressed her specific concerns with Kimsey’s actions.

“I want to raise a related factor in this deferral – the undue influence of an elected official on our process,’’ Donnelly said. “Whether you individually support or oppose this amendment, we must all unite to defend the independence of our processes from the other branches of county government.

“I refer to our elected auditor, who has taken an unusually active role in opposing this amendment, holding multiple meetings with other elected officials and with individual charter review commissioners over the past weeks, presenting an opposition report,’’ Donnelly said.

“Meanwhile I and the Amendment Committee have been on the outside, waiting. All of which may demonstrate the need next year to revise and reintroduce “Amendment 26-09: Prohibiting county government from interfering with initiatives and charter amendments,’’ Donnelly added.

“Bottom line: This Charter Review Commission is nothing if it is not independent, yet procedurally we committee chairs must go to the Executive branch for cost and legal review. Those officials owe it to us to act without bias,’’ Donnelly stated. “Other elected officials have maintained that standard even while going on record either supporting or opposing the amendment in its current version. Question for all of us: where is the ethical line for an elected official who opposes an amendment? At what point does individual opposition become interference, putting the hand on the scale? I believe the auditor has come close to or even has crossed those lines. That should concern not only us but the public.’’

Another commissioner shared the following thoughts about Kimsey’s role in the charter review process.

“I have concerns regarding the reliability of financial reports from the Finance Department overseen by Auditor Kimsey, given his attempts to influence the outcomes of 26-26 and other amendments,’’ the commissioner stated. “Additionally, Mitchell Kelly — the Finance Department employee responsible for the financial analyses of these amendments — is Greg Kimsey’s protégé and a 2026 auditor candidate, which raises further questions about impartiality.’’

Clark County Today has requested comment from Kimsey. This report will be updated if he responds.

Amendment 26-15: Ethics

This amendment, sponsored by Commissioner Dorothy Gasque, has three interconnected policy purposes:

• Ensure the county ethics framework serves its stated purpose. The current program has the structural appearance of ethics oversight without the substantive tools to deliver it. The code refers entirely to state law, the commission lacks independence from the officials it oversees, and the prevention tools that make ethics programs effective — training, disclosure, independent advice — do not exist. This amendment creates a program that functions, not merely one that exists.
• Establish structural independence that does not depend on individual character. Public trust in county government should not rest on faith in any individual official. This amendment makes trust a matter of design: the ethics commission is independent because the charter requires it to be, not because the current County Manager chooses to respect that independence.
• Build a system of accountability that works in practice, not just on paper. The current program has the structural appearance of ethics oversight without the tools to deliver it. This amendment ensures that Clark County’s ethics framework functions — that officials know what is expected, that the commission has the independence and capacity to act, and that the program is durable enough to outlast any individual commissioner or county manager.

After a spirited exchange with Clark County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Katie Jolma, Commissioner Gasque decided to defer her presentation until June 24. Jolma read a letter criticizing the Ethics amendment sponsored by Gasque, claiming sections were factually incorrect. Commissioner Gasque rebutted some of these claims but appeared visibly shaken and unsure how to proceed, leading to a 15-minute break.

“It should be noted that all other commissioners have worked directly with the reviewing attorney in a cooperative and respectful way to correct and edit all other proposed amendments,’’ Jolma stated. “Commissioner Gasque has chosen to operate outside of these standards. Second, her presentation is littered with half truths, misrepresentations, unfounded assumptions and outright falsities.’’

When given an opportunity to respond, Gasque first pointed out that she was elected by the people to serve on the Charter Review Commission and Jolma was not elected to serve in her capacity as deputy prosecuting attorney.

“Unlike the (deputy) prosecuting attorney, I was elected to reform the ethics and I don’t understand why they’re interfering,’’ Gasque said. “It’s a conflict of interest to protect the system that you currently operate.

“This is just unacceptable to interfere with our process, to interfere with the fact that I was elected to reform the ethics program,’’ Gasque added. “As Commissioner Donnelly mentioned earlier about the inappropriate behavior of elected officials, your office that is doing this is inappropriate. I don’t understand why you’re fighting so hard against this reform. This is the established structure for an effective ethics program.’’

Commissioner Eric LaBrant also expressed his concerns about how the Charter Review Commission has had to maneuver around the tactics of county staff, particularly in the case of the proposed Ethics amendment.

“When we have other amendments that we are having to tiptoe around how they represent feedback from the PA’s office, the publicly strident response that we heard this evening is shocking,’’ LaBrant said. “I want to amplify something that Commissioner Gasque said, that these comments seem to relate to the content of the amendment presentation. And not necessarily to the legal analysis of the amendment itself. Which raises some big issues for me. First, as Commissioner Gasque notes, this does not appear to have been the case for other amendment presentations, including those that have included claims that I found somewhat questionable.

“So it does cause me to wonder why this amendment is the only one that appears to have been singled out for this level of focus, and frankly, vocal pushback,’’ LaBrant said. “What I’m hearing is, some sort of implied Damocles here, where the PA’s office may not unilaterally oppose an amendment per se, but can effectively do so by declining to approve an amendment as to form. And we commissioners are legal laypersons, for whom it may be unclear now whether we might support this amendment, but be overridden by the PA’s office.

“So with that, I do plan to support this motion,’’ LaBrant said. “But I’m very concerned that the perception of neutrality is damaged. And, I don’t know that it’s possible to push that toothpaste back into the tube.’’

Process, upcoming town halls

Clark County’s home rule charter is the county’s rulebook for how its government is set up and how it operates. It defines roles, powers, elections and processes. It doesn’t set day-to-day policies and cannot override state and federal laws or constitutions.

Any changes to the charter recommended by the Charter Review Commission must go to a countywide vote in a general election. The review commission has set a target of Aug. 4, for submitting any potential changes to the charter to the county auditor for the November 2026 general election ballot.

The Commission has scheduled a series of town hall meetings to get feedback from county residents. The town hall events will be held in each of the five county council districts.

The remaining town hall meetings are scheduled as follows:

• District 3: 2 to 4 p.m. Sunday, June 14, Community Room, Cascade Park Library, 600 NE 136th Ave.
• District 4: 3 to 5 p.m. Saturday, June 6, second floor meeting room, Camas Public Library, 625 NE 4th Ave.
• District 5: 1 to 3 p.m. Sunday, June 7, Moulton Falls Room, Battle Ground Event Center, 912 E Main St.

Town halls were held previously for Districts 1 and 2.

Charter Review Commissioners will present information on proposed amendments to the county’s charter, seek feedback from town hall participants, and answer questions about the commission’s work. Anyone wishing to provide written comment to the commission may do so via the county’s website.

More information on the Commission’s events is available at https://clark.wa.gov/charter/events.