🎧 County Manager Raise vs Deputy Funding: Anderson’s Take
Reform Clark County Founder Rob Anderson shares his latest Reformcast episode
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
After a seven-week absence due to a medical emergency that required open-heart surgery, I recently returned with a new episode of Reformcast — and unfortunately, the same concerns about Clark County’s priorities remain.
For years, the sheriff has warned that we are dangerously understaffed on deputies. Clark County sits well below even Washington’s already-low average. Last year, the request for additional deputies was largely dismissed.
Now, the county has finally approved funding for 21 new deputies over the next three years — but only through a new sales tax, not from the existing budget — and far short of the 149 positions needed just to bring us up to average Washington state standards (which are already among the lowest in the country).
Yet in that very same meeting last week, on the very next item on the agenda, the County Council approved a significant raise and contract extension for the county manager.
We’re told there’s a “structural deficit.” We’re told there’s no money for deputies in the general fund. But apparently, there’s enough for executive raises.
That contradiction raised a lot of eyebrows.
The next day, at a Charter Review Commission meeting, Councilor Glen Yung spoke out strongly against a proposed supermajority requirement for raising property taxes, arguing that the county needs flexibility to fund priorities like public safety.
Moments later, he was asked directly why the council had just approved a large raise for the county manager while claiming there wasn’t money available for deputies, hence why a new tax was approved.
That question cuts to the heart of the issue.
For more than three years, the council has had opportunities to prioritize deputies within the existing budget — and has chosen not to. Instead, they now ask taxpayers to fund public safety through new taxes, while continuing to expand spending elsewhere, adding to the structural deficit.
This isn’t about whether the county manager deserves fair compensation. It’s about priorities and trust.
When more deputies can’t be funded from the general budget — but raises for an already very well-paid county manager can — it sends a clear message.
Clark County doesn’t have a revenue problem. It has a prioritization problem.
The Charter Review Commission is now considering proposals that would require broader agreement before raising taxes and prioritize public safety spending. Those reforms deserve serious attention.
Because if public safety truly is a priority, it should be reflected in how existing dollars are spent — not just in calls for higher taxes.
Clark County residents are paying attention. If you want to hear more about these decisions and the direct exchange that exposed this contradiction, I break it all down in the latest episode of Reformcast. The details matter — and they’re all there for the public to see and judge for themselves.
Rob Anderson, founder
Reform Clark County
Also read:
- Letter: The county manager gets a raise while taxpayers get a new tax
County approves manager raise while claiming no general fund money exists for desperately needed deputies. - Washington Supreme Court cases could decide fate of controversial income tax
Twelve candidates compete for five Supreme Court seats as the court prepares to rule on the state’s new income tax. - Sarah Mittelman announces campaign for Washington State Representative, LD 49 (Position 1)
Psychiatric nurse practitioner Sarah Mittelman launches bid for LD 49 state representative seat. - County’s Charter Review Commission seeks public comment on proposed charter amendments
Commission Chair Brandon Erickson encourages residents to share input on proposed amendments for ballot consideration. - Letter: Representation has been sidelined in favor of enforced unanimity
Camas resident argues removal from transit board signals dangerous shift toward “enforced unanimity” over true representation.
