KEN VANCE

As is often the case, there weren’t an abundance of compelling races in this month’s primary election. There were few positions that had legitimate top-two elimination battles on the ballot. That said, my interest in the November general election has already been piqued.

At or near the top of the reasons this general election is of great interest to me, is how will Clark County voters be split on the Home Rule Charter? Voters in the county have defeated three past efforts to approve a Home Rule Charter (1982, 1997 and 2002). For some reason, I think this year’s vote shapes up to be more compelling than those in the past.

First of all, I have made the issue our editorial question this week. I hope you will go to our website (www.thereflector.com) and let us know how you feel on the issue at this point.

On a side note, I realize there is a potential flaw in our poll. It allows just one vote from each computer, but obviously it doesn’t prevent readers from voting from more than one computer. I received some comments of concern when I asked for our reader’s thoughts on the race for Clark County sheriff. Ironically, the results of our “unscientific’’ poll were remarkably similar to the results of the primary election. That said, I’m not in any way holding our poll up to be anything more than a glimpse into the current thoughts of our readers who choose to participate.

Back to why I believe this year’s vote on the Home Rule Charter is compelling to me. First of all, there is such an acrimonious culture in the county right now. The ideological divide between Conservatives and Liberals, Democrats and Republicans, is as wide as anytime in recent memory. And, I believe this vote will, in large part, be that of ideological minds and party lines.

Second, it appears to me that the proponents of the Home Rule Charter are well organized, well funded, and extremely motivated to get the Charter approved. It appears to me that they fully understand the uphill battle they, and others, have faced in the past and they are not taking the Herculean-nature of the task for granted. Curiously, at this point, there just doesn’t seem to be the same groundswell of organized support for a fight against that uprising for change.

Let’s face it, there are strong footholds on both sides of the issue. Clark County has always, in my mind, leaned to the right. Sure, inside the City of Vancouver and among certain, even powerful, county leaders, there are Democrats/Liberals who are passionate and committed to their agenda. And, those folks have been galvanized and energized in their opposition to David Madore and Tom Mielke’s majority leadership on the Clark County Board of Commissioners.

There are those who believe I have a dog in this fight, when it comes to Madore and Mielke against the field. Even though I am a confessed Conservative, I don’t approach county issues with an ideological agenda. My view of the proposed Home Rule Charter isn’t based upon what has transpired in the last couple of years, and it’s my hope that voters who want to approve the charter don’t view it as a vote against Madore and Mielke. There’s much more at stake in this vote than just trying to pry away some power from two conservatives who currently hold a majority on the board.

In the State of Washington, six of the 39 counties have a Home Rule Charter in place. If Clark County becomes the seventh, here’s some of the changes that would take place:

• The Board of Commissioners would be expanded from three to five and their pay would be cut virtually in half, to $53,000 annually.

• The commissioners would no longer have the ability to hire and fire department heads or implement a countywide initiative and referendum process.

• One of the five county “councilors’’ would serve at-large and would act as “chairman.’’

One of my biggest fears, is that the 15 freeholders who created this proposed Charter (three of which voted against it), weren’t working with a historical perspective in mind. They were acting in a reactionary way to the current dynamics in play in our county. That’s extremely dangerous if that was the case.

I have always been amazed at the wisdom and foresight our Founding Fathers had when they drafted our Constitution and created our form of government, seemingly to account for all contingencies. Does this Home Rule Charter do that? Is the restructuring of the Board of Commissioners and the shift in the balance of their power to an appointed county manager a better structure for our county? I’m not convinced that’s the case.

It’s my hope that voters in our area will take a closer look in the next couple of months as to what is the best path for the long-term future of Clark County and not just consider how it might be a short-term solution to current frustrations. I promise I will.

Ken Vance

Editor

Recommended for you

(3) comments

Kevin VanGelder

Just tonight the Clark County Republican Party Central Committee voted for a Resolution to Defeat the Freeholder's Charter. Signs and fliers were distributed after the meeting. I acknowledge that it's a little bit of a late start, but late is better than never, and we PCO's are very passionate about seeing this charter defeated. Not because we want to protect Milke and Madore but because the charter fundamentally flawed in many ways.

K Hinton

Looking at the composition of the Freeholders, not to mention their final product, it was vary obvious that the charter is the product of rank partisanship.

Yes, the pro-side is well funded. And it's well funded by the same people who first, never voted for either Commissioner Madore or Mielke and, second, also coincidentally rabidly supported the CRC that these two commissioners were instrumental in killing.

The fact is this: Betty Sue Morris is helping to lead the charge for the charter, yet she made no effort to change county government when it was all democrats in charge. And taking it a step further, would we even be having this discussion now if democrats had maintained control of the commission?

Of course not. So, do not be fooled. This is NOT about what's "best for us." This is about overturning the 2012 election and making another effort to bring the CRC back to life so they can ignore our position on it as stated by the ballot and then proceed to ram it down our throat.

So, what's changed?

A certain, well-funded, highly partisan group does not like the fact they lost on the CRC... for now... their ongoing efforts to bring it back notwithstanding.

Every person in the group, including Greg Kimsey, was a rabid CRC Supporter, and that means they did not and do not care what the people of this county think, believe or want when it comes to their agenda.

Then-Commissioner Steve Stuart said it best when he said, on video during board time:

"And I've said it before: I don't speak for the people... I will NEVER speak for "the people," I speak for Steve and some of you are going to agree with me and some of you aren't."

That is the kind of people who crafted this charter... a charter that doesn't even allow the toothless power of initiative to change it down the road. In short, once we have it, we're stuck with it. And if they win on that, what the people of this county will want on anything after that will mean even less than it does now to those behind this legal coup attempt... and that is nothing at all.

rorybowman

Looking at the composition of 15 freeholders, it was very obvious there was a lot of gray matter at the table, including folks from both parties with elected and other service to the county going back decades, and that was a good thing.

I am not just non-partisan but ANTI-partistan at most levels of government. Although the US constitution guarantees a two-party system, one of the things I have historically admired about Clark County and the state of Washington has been the ability of elected lawmakers to work "across the aisle" on innovative solutions. I think I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats on virtually every ballot I've filled out, and a few of those Republicans are now leaders and endorsers for the Charter Yes campaign.

However much some may try to portray the charter as a partisan issue or one of personal vendetta, historically this is not the case, and I don't think it is the case now. This is not the first time that a charter has been considered, but circumstances have made it a much higher-profile issue this time.

Talk of a charter has been around for many years, and I am confident that something very much like this shall pass within the next several years, if not in November.

I'll be voting yes on the charter for many reasons, but also because I think it helps to dramatically decrease opportunities for corruption, vengeance and grandstanding.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.