In the second story in Clark County Today’s series, candidates display a clear difference in views of the current balance between the County Council and the County Manager

Ken Vance, editor
Clark County Today

When the County Charter was approved by Clark County voters in 2014, it created a Separation of Powers in the way the county operates. Specifically, the Charter creates a separation between the County Council (legislative) and the County Manager (executive administration). 

On Nov. 4, Clark County voters will once again elect 15 area residents (three from each of the five councilor districts) to form a Charter Review Commission to assess the need for any changes to the charter.

Clark County Today invited all current candidates the opportunity to answer a number of questions designed to reveal their views on the current charter. Eleven candidates provided CCT with responses.

Among the questions Clark County Today asked was if the candidates thought this balance, or separation of powers, was working as intended? There was a distinct difference of opinion among the candidates.

“The charter was deliberately crafted to establish a clear separation of powers between the County Council’s legislative and executive functions,’’ said Cathie Garber (District 2, Position 2). “This section of the language was referred to as the ‘Firewall.’ This structure assigns certain defined responsibilities to an appointed county manager, who reports directly to the County Council and serves at their discretion. The charter was amended to require Council to consult the Executive branch when appointing a county manager candidate. The separation between executive and legislative prevents concentrated power, establishes clear roles of both branches, provides transparency and creates a system of checks and balances to prevent abuses. I think the current system is working well.’’

Duncan Hoss (District 5, Position 2) agreed with Garber that the current separation was necessary.

“The separation between the County Council and County Manager is essential,’’ Hoss said. “While it has worked in some areas, there is room for improvement. The Council must remain the legislative voice of the people, not overshadowed by administrative authority. Clearer boundaries and accountability measures would strengthen this balance.’’

Jill Ross (District 3, Position 1) essentially echoed similar support for the structure, but adding that it needed “refinement.’’

“The elected Council and appointed Manager structure provides accountability and continuity, which establishes a solid framework for balanced governance, but it needs refinement to work as intended,’’ Ross said. “Currently bureaucratic barriers can hinder communication, slowing responses to community needs. To address this, I’d propose adding language emphasizing collaboration to enhance inter-branch communication, streamline decision-making, and ensure the Council and Manager work cohesively to reflect residents’ priorities, fostering a more responsive and accountable government. In addition, I’d advocate revising the Charter to require an annual performance review for the County Manager by the Council, ensuring accountability while preserving independence.’’

A majority of the candidates who responded to Clark County Today were very clear in their view that this element of the County Charter was not working as intended.

“I do not. I think that the County Manager has too much power while the powers of the Council have been diluted,’’ said Brad Benton (District 5, Position 1).

“No. I think that the Executive branch has too much control and the Legislative branch has too little control. That needs to be adjusted in the Charter through the amendment process,’’ said Kirk VanGelder (District 4, Position 3).

“No. The balance of power is weighted too heavily in favor of the unelected County Manager,’’ said Liz Cline (District 4, Position 1). “Too much power/authority was removed from the elected County Councilors in the construct and subsequent amendments of the Charter. Therefore, it reduces the authority and oversight of the citizens’ representation through their Councilors. Obstacles and barriers exist, hindering the Councilors’ ability to interact with County employees. The Councilors have been reduced to legislators and budget approvers. They have zero individual ‘legislative’ support personnel to assist them in their roles.’’

“No. There is broad consensus among many experts I have consulted that the County Manager is exercising too much power, and perhaps even more than the current Charter permits,’’ said Ann Donnelly (District 1, Position 2). “The situation is exacerbated by Manager (Kathleen) Otto’s rather incommunicative management style. Council members and other county elected officials report that a re-balancing of the executive/legislative relationship is among the most important issues of the upcoming Charter Review. However, the Council has already begun to address this issue, it appears … the Charter Review Commission will be tasked with identifying additional measures needed to be rebalance the executive-legislative relationship that can be proposed as amendment(s).’’

John Jay (District 3, Position 3) believes the current structure has weakened “the Council’s ability to fulfill its legislative role.”

“The charter’s current checks and balances limit the Council’s ability to effectively counterbalance the unelected County Manager,’’ said Jay. “Provisions that restrict oversight, investigations, and access to information weaken the Council’s ability to fulfill its legislative role and serve constituents. I would support exploring ways to strengthen Council oversight, improve access to information, and consider a full-time Council so members have the time and authority needed to ensure County government is responsive, accountable, and working for the public.’’

Bob Runnells (District 2, Position 2) agrees that the balance of power has “swung too far.”

“When the Home Rule Charter was adopted in 2015, it was done to take power away from the legislators and toward their appointed County Manager (executive),’’ Runnells said. “I think the balance of power swung too far. It is encouraging that the Council has recently put in place a County Manager review process.’’

Brandon Erickson (District 2, Position 1) agrees that “more accountability is needed for the County Manager position.”

“The intent behind separating legislative and executive powers is sound, but the balance has not always worked in practice as envisioned,’’ Erickson said. “The Council needs greater ability to independently set clear policy direction, review outcomes, and communicate with constituents, departments, and other elected officials. We should maintain the separation of powers but ensure the County Manager position is not a bottleneck in communication between the Council and others. More accountability is needed for the County Manager position, not only in personal performance but in measurable results for the departments that report to that office. The Charter could make it clearer that the County Manager works for and at the pleasure of the Council. The Council’s recent actions to address these matters are a positive initial step toward better transparency and results. I will continue monitoring this issue to determine whether those corrections are sufficient or if a Charter amendment may still be appropriate.’’

Peter Silliman (District 5, Position 3) believes the County Council needs its own staff.

“The People’s House is the Legislative Branch or County Council,’’ Silliman said. “These five councilors are supposed to represent the people’s interests and provide balance to the views of the 2000 government employees in the administrative branch. We currently have the distinction of being the only county legislative branch in Washington that has zero employees. That means the County Council has no independent support staff or legal help of any kind to represent the Councilor’s interests. They have no means to do their own research. They can’t even run their own meetings without assistance from the administrative staff. This isn’t how any other county in Washington is run and it is hard to believe there is any kind of balance when the only information that is provided to councilors is what the administrative branch wants them to know. This is because the county charter spells out that there should be a legislative branch, but it was silent on the issue of legislative staffing. We have an opportunity to make that clear and restore balance between the legislative branch and the administrative branch. We simply need to make it clear that they should have their own staff and run their own meetings. This really has no cost to the county but shifting the assignment of a few staff members. At the time of the Charters adoption, there were four office staff, and three Policy Analysts in the council office. Add an independent legal advisor and we actually have the independent legislative branch the charter calls for.’’

---

Also read:

• 
  Opinion: You did it Democrats!
  So bravo, Democrats — you saved democracy, all right; you just forgot to save the people living in it.
• 
  POLL: Should Councilor Michelle Belkot be reinstated to the C-TRAN Board following the Skamania County findings?
  Clark County Today’s latest poll asks whether Councilor Michelle Belkot should be reinstated to the C-TRAN Board after a Skamania County investigation found rule violations in her removal.
• 
  Conservative activist Scott Presler scheduled to visit Battle Ground on Monday for signing event
  Conservative activist Scott Presler will visit Battle Ground on Monday for a Super Signing Event supporting a statewide initiative to require voter ID and proof of citizenship to vote.
• 
  End of shutdown ignites new round of sparring among WA’s congressional lawmakers
  Washington lawmakers traded blame after Congress voted to end the record-long shutdown, with Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez breaking ranks to support the funding bill.
• 
  US House expected to clear bill reopening the government after record-shattering shutdown
  The U.S. House is expected to pass a stopgap spending bill ending the record 43-day shutdown, with lawmakers now facing a Jan. 30 deadline to complete the remaining funding bills.