Public comment prevails: No action taken on Clerk agenda item at Clark County Council meeting

Clark County Council declined to advance a proposal to make the County Clerk position appointed, deferring the issue to the Charter Review Commission after public concerns over transparency.

Several people, including elected officials, voiced concerns over a proposal to send to the ballot a request from voters to change the Clark County Clerk position from an election official to an appointed office, and Clark County Council agreed to take no action

Paul Valencia
Clark County Today

The timing was “alarming” for one person in public comment.

Another called it an “ambush.”

And an elected official was “surprised” to see the agenda item come up so late in the day Tuesday for Wednesday’s Council Time meeting of the Clark County Council.

The subject: An amendment to place on the November ballot proposing to change the Clark County Clerk position from an elected official to an appointed official.

In the end, the Clark County Council agreed to not go forward with any plans to add that item to the 2025 fall election. Instead, the council hopes the Clark County Charter Review Commission, which will be elected this fall, will make a recommendation on the future of the position.

Clark County residents even got an apology from Clark County Council Chair Sue Marshall for the “very vague” agenda item and for the late addition to the agenda.

It might have been late, but there was enough time for many to rally, to voice their concerns over the proposal.

Clark County Treasurer Alicia Topper used public comment to make her point, noting how surprised she was to see “Clark County Clerk” on the agenda late Tuesday afternoon.

She was not there to discuss her opinion on the office of the clerk, but “just voice my opinion about process, transparency and public debate,” Topper said.

“We have a Charter Review Commission and individuals running for that elected office,” Topper said. “To me, that is the appropriate forum, an opportunity for all members of the public, including the courts, to voice their concerns about that office.

“I ask you not to take action today on this item and to refer it to the County Charter Review Commission.”

Peter Van Nortwick, the accessor for Clark County, also voiced his concern during public comment. He noted the clerk is an elected official working for the executive branch and discussed separation of powers.

“While this action might not violate the letter of the charter, I believe it violates the spirit of the charter,” Van Nortwick said.

Liz Cline, president of Clark County Republican Women, also stepped up during public comment.

“This change threatens the democratic foundation of our county and diminishes the voice of every citizen that calls Clark County home,” Cline said.

“The citizens of Clark County deserve to have their voices heard through the ballot box not silenced through administrative restructuring. If the county manager takes control of the clerk’s office, we lose an independent voice,” she said.

Rob Anderson of Reform Clark County also used his three minutes to voice his opposition.

“I urge the council to reject this effort, to reserve the people’s right to elect the County Clerk. Resolve disputes through dialogue and education, not by silencing the people’s voice,” Anderson said.

Later in the meeting, under “New Business,” the discussion of the “Clark County Clerk” resumed. Marshall acknowledged that it was a “very vague agenda item” that was posted late.

“Apologies for that,” Marshall said, adding that they will do better in the future.

Clark County Superior Court Judge Derek Vanderwood presented the council an argument for asking the public to change the County Clerk position from elected to appointed. He said this is about the best method for court operations in Clark County. This proposal is in place in other counties in Washington.

If enacted in Clark County, Vanderwood said, the entire court system would be more efficient. He is for the County Clerk position being appointed by judges, or possibly the legislative branch.

Clark County councilors thanked Vanderwood for his presentation, but they agreed to allow the next review commission to take up the subject.

“We have one elected official asking us to place something on the ballot. We have a different elected official asking us not to,” said Glen Yung. “In this particular instance, I don’t feel like it’s our place. I feel the Charter Review Commission should flesh out.”

Michelle Belkot agreed.

“I don’t feel comfortable as an elected (official) deciding who should not be elected,” Belkot said. “I just feel it should purely go through Charter Review.”

“I have my own opinions on what this position should be, but I think the Charter Review should be responsible for that,” Wil Fuentes said.

Marshall then said it appeared the council has no desire to move forward with discussing the proposal to bring it to the 2025 ballot.

“I’m inclined to agree this should go to the Charter Review Commission for consideration,” Marshall said.

“It’s a perfect issue to be considered by the Charter Review Commission because they are created for this purpose,” Matt Little said.

The councilors did want to hear from Clark County Clerk Scott Weber next week. He is on vacation and out of town this week.