Clark County Today continues its series on views of Charter Review Commission candidates
Ken Vance, editor
Clark County Today
In the Nov. 4 general election, Clark County voters will elect 15 representatives to serve on the Charter Review Commission.
In 2014, area voters established the Clark County Charter. Every five years they must elect three representatives from each of the five County Council districts to serve on the commission and make recommendations for proposed amendments.
In the past two weeks, Clark County Today has provided readers with a glimpse into the perspective of Charter Review Commission candidates who took the time to provide responses to a number of questions.
One of the questions Clark County Today asked the candidates was the following:
Looking Forward – What principles would you bring to the Charter Review Commission in evaluating which amendments, if any, should be forwarded to the voters?
Eleven candidates responded to Clark County Today and here are their responses:
“I would bring principles of transparency, accountability, and public service to the Charter Review Commission,’’ said candidate John Jay (District 3, Position 3). “My experience on the Vancouver Planning Commission, Clark County Parks Advisory Board, and in local civic organizations has shown me the importance of clear governance and effective oversight. Amendments should be evaluated based on whether they strengthen governance, clarify responsibilities, improve checks and balances, and enhance the county’s ability to serve residents.’’
“The principles I would enshrine in the Charter would protect the people from taxation, Promote Law enforcement, and limit the power and growth of the administrative branch,’’ said Peter Silliman (District 5, Position 3).
“If elected, I will work tirelessly so that honesty, integrity, and dedication to public service define my time on the commission,’’ said Brad Benton (District 5, Position 1). “I want to listen to the people I represent and give them a voice in our government. I will look at the issues we face as a county and community and work toward common sense solutions that benefit all residents of Clark County.’’
“As a 30-year resident of Clark County, a business owner, a father, a grandfather, and an active volunteer, I care deeply about this community and am committed to good governance where the voices of the public and fellow Charter Review Commissioners are respected,’’ said Brandon Erickson (District 2, Position 1). “I will bring that perspective, along with a love for Clark County and a practical understanding of how local government affects families and businesses, to the decisions before the Commission. I will ask whether a proposed amendment makes a meaningful, positive difference for Clark County citizens, regardless of which district they live in, whether rural or urban, or how they participate in the community. I will also evaluate each proposal by asking key questions: Does it strengthen the Charter’s framework and foundation for local governance? Is the Charter silent or unclear in areas where additional guidance would improve accountability or efficiency? Are there unintended consequences that should be corrected? Is the County Council doing something that should be changed, or failing to do something that should occur? These are the principles I will use to decide which amendments deserve voter consideration.’’
“My 16 years of experience consulting with large government and commercial customers to implement new risk management policies and systems involved problem solving amidst complex governance frameworks,’’ said Bob Runnells (District 2, Position 2). “Yet, I always favored simpler solutions to increase the chances for successful change. Additionally, as a fiscal conservative, I will only support amendments that 100% make budgetary sense and will greatly resist anything that could lead to increased taxes.’’
“A well-functioning local government relies on established rules, regulations, practices, and precedent, and its charter is a large part of this,’’ said Cathie Garber (District 2, Position 2). “A charter outlines the structure for local government, affecting both citizens and staff. Any proposed changes to the charter require voter approval, which makes the charter process a matter of public participation and oversight. I bring the ability to work collaboratively with citizens with diverse backgrounds and opinions; actively listen and work with fellow commissioners and community members to place amendments on the ballot that are well thought out, clear and improve the efficiency of county government while being within the constraints of law. The outcome should result in a collaborative process involving all members of the charter review commission and needed input from citizens along the way. Any proposed amendments should be carefully considered, comply with state law and the state constitution, and aim to enhance the charter in ways that support a more efficient, effective, and streamlined government for its Citizens.’’
“In evaluating Charter amendments, I would bring principles of integrity, accountability, and pragmatism,’’ said Jill Ross (District 3, Position 1). “First, I’d ensure amendments reflect commonsense, practical solutions that address community priorities like public safety, affordability, and transparency. Second, I’d assess proposals for their practicality and proven effectiveness, drawing on successful models from other counties’ charters. Third, I’d prioritize amendments that enhance accountability, such as requiring a super majority for tax increases or requiring annual performance audits. Only amendments meeting these criteria — community-aligned, practical, and accountable — should be forwarded to voters to strengthen Clark County.’’
“The first principle would be identifying those things in the Charter that hamper citizens ability to pursue life, liberty, or happiness and working to remove or reduce those obstacles. The second principle would be listening to other commissioners and the general public for their ideas that promote that goal,’’ said Kirk VanGelder (District 4, Position 3).
“Commissioners should consider whether each proposed amendment benefits Clark County’s citizens, enhances efficiency and transparency, and demands clear justification,’’ said Liz Cline (District 4, Position 1). “In addition, conduct a thorough review of previously passed Charter amendments for possible revision and submission to the voters if deemed necessary, ensuring that all updates reflect the current needs and best interests of Clark County residents. This ongoing evaluation should prioritize transparency, efficiency, and responsiveness to community concerns, allowing the Charter to remain a living document that supports effective governance and public trust.’’
“It is a practical reality that we have to carefully prioritize the amendments we send to the voters,’’ said Ann Donnelly (District 1, Position 2). “Each will impact the voters’ appreciation for our work and the public comment on the amendments in general. We have to consider ‘how many is too many’ before voters give up. I would prioritize public safety (sheriff’s staffing) and the rebalancing of executive and legislative branches. I also consider it very important to clarify that the county clerk, sheriff, auditor, etc., are elected, not appointed, positions. This issue came up recently when judges moved to change the clerk to an appointed position, thus removing an important check/balance mechanism. Another priority, I believe, is to clarify the role of a council member when serving on an external committee, an issue that has become an expensive and time consuming legal controversy. Setting priorities for a reasonable list of amendments for the ballot is among the most essential roles of the Commission.’’
“I will bring principles of accountability, efficiency, and transparency to the Commission,’’ said Duncan Hoss (District 5, Position 2). “My background in managing large operations, budgets, and public safety initiatives has shown me the importance of balancing effectiveness with public trust. Any proposed amendments should strengthen citizen oversight and keep government limited, efficient, and responsive.’’
Also read:
- Opinion: Blood on the highways fails to move Ferguson and Kotek
Lars Larson criticizes Washington and Oregon governors over licensing policies he says are linked to deadly truck crashes and ongoing highway safety risks. - Opposing statements sought for Feb. 10, 2026 ballot measures
The Clark County Elections Office is seeking registered voters to write opposing statements for two local school district propositions ahead of the February 10, 2026 special election. - Opinion: A warning to Washington – The ‘Minnesota Model’ of fraud has arrived
Yacolt resident Mark Rose warns that Washington’s grant pass-through system mirrors the failures behind Minnesota’s Feeding Our Future fraud scandal and urges stronger oversight before taxpayers face major losses. - Voting by mail faces uncertain moment ahead of midterm elections
With a Supreme Court case looming and states tightening deadlines, voting by mail faces new legal and political uncertainty ahead of next year’s midterm elections. - Let’s Go Washington issues initiatives signature count update
Let’s Go Washington says it has collected more than 315,000 and 289,000 signatures on two initiatives and is pushing toward 400,000 per measure.
