After hearing arguments against the proposal during public comment on Wednesday, the Clark County Council voted 3-2 against an amendment that would have granted the county auditor’s office the authority to place financial impact statements on initiatives and amendments on the ballot

Paul Valencia
Clark County Today

The power of public comment was on display Wednesday during Council Time in Vancouver..

Members of the public — including two associated with the Clark County Charter Review Commission — used their time to denounce a proposed amendment that the Clark County Council was considering to have placed on the ballot.

The discussion that started last week by the council and continued this week was in regard to a proposal to the county’s Home Rule Charter: the auditor’s office would provide a financial impact statement for any initiative placed on a ballot.

There were several arguments against this idea, including some who said it would grant too much authority for one office to give an estimate of a cost. If the auditor did not like an amendment, for example, the auditor could tip the scales by overestimating the costs associated with the amendment or initiative. Another argument was that Clark County voters already said no to a similar measure just two years ago.

The arguments were compelling enough that the council voted 3-2 against moving forward with its proposal. This proposal required a super majority of four votes to pass. The council did, however, vote to put in writing a request for the Charter Review Commission to consider financial impact statements and legal advice in the future.

“This measure would hand the auditor too much power when such power is least appropriate,” said Anne Donnelly, a member of the Clark County Review Commission. Donnelly noted that while she is a commissioner, she came to Council Time only to represent her views and give her expertise.

“The auditor should not be handed a pre-eminent power to identify costs and potentially place a hand on the scale of the ballot process,” Donnelly said. “Cost impacts are important, but costs are not written in stone. This measure would hand the stone tablets to the auditor’s office to write on and hand down with intrusive authority.”

Furthermore, Donnelly said, cost projections are open to interpretations.

Liz Cline, another member of the commission, also said she was there to represent her views. Cline pointed out that every councilor has been asked to appear before the commission and all have been asked if the commission should consider other actions. Not one brought up this particular subject. She said this is being pushed by the current auditor, Greg Kimsey, through the County Council.

It should be noted that Kimsey has announced he will not seek reelection. Still, Cline and others pointed out in public comment, that Kimsey has been politically active of late. Those arguing against this proposal said it would give too much power to whoever is in office.

A similar charter amendment was voted down in 2024.

Cline said that this action now, just two years later, shows that insiders will not take no for an answer.

“They just keep trying to find another procedural path to push it,” Cline said. “If the public defeated it before, the auditor and the council should respect that outcome instead of using government channels to override voters.”

When it was time for the councilors to talk, Michelle Belkot agreed with Cline. She said this sounds like another light rail vote. The people, she said, vote no on light rail. Local leaders tell the people that their vote means nothing and try to get light rail anyway.

“How many times do we have to vote this down?” Belkot asked.

Councilor Glen Yung gave arguments for and against the amendment, but in the end he did not support it.

“I do agree with some of the comments that you are placing a lot of power in the hands of one person the way it is written,” Yung said.

Councilor Matt Little asked several questions, and he said he understood both sides of the issue. He would not agree with supporting the proposal with the current language. He would like to see changes in the language that would include “true and impartial” in terms of which office would be giving the financial impact statement.

Chair Sue Marshall gave her support for the proposal.

“Out of transparency it would be good for the public to be aware of what the costs are for the things that they’re voting on,” Marshall said.

Councilor Wil Fuentes agreed.

“I think voters need to have as much information as possible to make an informed decision. I feel comfortable moving forward with this,” he said.

That led to a heated exchange between Belkot and Fuentes.

“If the Council goes and supports this, something that has already been voted no … then you are working around the Charter Commission,” Belkot said, adding “Why bother?”

The voters gave the Charter Review Commission a job to do, and by adding this proposal, it is “an insult, actually, to our Charter Commission and the work they do,” Belkot said.

Fuentes fired back:

“This is not working around the Charter Review Commission,” Fuentes said. “We have full authority … to propose amendments. This is within our purview. We can do this.”

“I disagree, and I think it’s disrespectful,” Belkot replied.

In the end, Belkot, Little, and Yung voted no, while Fuentes and Marshall voted yes.

“It’s not moving forward,” Marshall said.

They did vote to send, in writing, a request to the commission to look at new language in regard to the same issue, perhaps with “true and impartial” or giving the authority to a different office. Also, Little said he hopes that a legal statement could be added to future initiatives.