Charter Review Commission candidate John Jay offers his second letter in a series on the history/process of the commission
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and may not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com
My previous paper explored the process by which Clark County established itself as a Home Rule County in 2014 and provided an initial introduction into the structure of our charter. Like other Washington Home Rule counties, Clark County established a Charter Review Commission tasked with reviewing the charter “to determine its adequacy and suitability to the needs of the county and propose necessary and appropriate amendments.”
Every five years, three commissioners would be elected from each of the five county council districts (including the then at-large district) to form a fifteen-member commission. Amendments proposed by the commission would then be placed directly on the ballot for voters to approve or reject by a simple majority.
The 2020 election cycle saw a surge of interest in the upcoming 2021 County Charter Review Commission, with over 50 candidates filing to run for a seat on the commission. City councilors, a county treasurer, former and future state legislators, a port commissioner, neighborhood association presidents, past Freeholders, and political newcomers all threw their hats into a race largely ignored by an electorate focused on the competitive presidential race at the top of the ticket and COVID-19.
After the election, the commission chose Chuck Green and future Vancouver City Council Member Kim Harless as the co-chairs and set to work. For the 2021 election, this commission proposed seven amendments including proposals that would establish nonpartisan offices for both the council and the executive offices (sheriff, assessor, auditor, etc.), eliminate the at-large council chair position for five district-based council elections, establish an every five-year election and convening cycle for the county charter review, create an autonomous ethics committee, create a district, Equity and Inclusion Department, and one to revise minor grammatical issues. All of which passed, except for the DEI department.
Following a relatively successful first round of amendments, the commission returned in 2022 with a new set of proposed changes to the charter — this time with mixed results. Among the five proposals were a renewed attempt to establish a DEI officer and commission, the introduction of ranked choice voting for county elections, a requirement for the county council to consult with elected county executives (such as the auditor, assessor, sheriff, etc.) when appointing a county manager, the addition of a charter preamble, a process for filling vacancies among elected county executives, and reforms to the citizen initiative process that would reduce signatures required to get on the ballot. Of these, only the requirement for council consultation of elected county executives in appointing a county manager and the new vacancy-filling rules were approved by voters.
How do we measure the success of the past County Charter Review Commissions? When considering both rounds of elections in 2021 and 2022, less than 70% of the amendments approved by the electorate. After early success with their 2021 proposals, the commission overplayed its hand in the second round. This was most evident in their decision to bring back a DEI amendment in 2022 — despite its clear rejection in 2021, when it lost by 12 points. The revised version fared even worse, suffering a 22-point defeat.
What lessons emerge from this? The Charter Review Commission was most successful when it advanced amendments with broad, nonpartisan appeal — such as making the county council and executive offices nonpartisan — rather than relying on overtly ideological approaches. It also underscores the value of a commission that listens to the public, rather than appearing to sidestep voter will by reintroducing nearly identical amendments after a clear defeat.
Our next County Charter Review Commission ought to take note.
John Jay, candidate
Charter Review Commission
Also read:
- Opinion: WA House Finance Committee passes income tax bill
Ryan Frost argues that ESSB 6346, which would impose a 9.9 percent income tax, advances to the House floor despite widespread opposition and ongoing budget growth. - Opinion: A-pillars – The safety feature that increases crashes
Doug Dahl explains how wider A-pillars designed to protect occupants in rollovers may also reduce visibility and increase crash risk for other road users. - POLL: Will lawmakers’ actions at Tuesday’s State of the Union Address impact your voting in the upcoming mid-term election?
Clark County Today’s latest poll asks voters whether lawmakers’ conduct during the State of the Union will influence their mid-term election decisions. - Letter: Endorsement of Eileen Quiring O’Brien by retired Major General Gary Medvigy
Retired Major General and former councilor Gary Medvigy outlines his reasons for endorsing Eileen Quiring O’Brien in the Clark County auditor race. - Opinion: ‘Teachers and administrators who even SUSPECT child abuse must report to law enforcement’
Lars Larson argues that school officials in Longview failed to follow mandatory reporting laws after allegations of rape at Mark Morris High School.
