PORT ANGELES — Clallam County voters this November will decide whether the community development director should be appointed and whether county commissioners should be elected entirely by district.
Next year, voters will consider forming an Office of Ombudsman to investigate public officials and whistleblower complaints, among other things.
The Clallam County Charter Review Commission this week settled on 12 proposed charter amendments that will be presented to voters in 2015 and 2016 elections.
Ballot language for the eight measures that will appear on this year’s ballot will be vetted by the commission Aug. 3.
The 15-member panel will reconvene in the fall to tackle four proposed ballot issues for 2016.
‘Pro, con arguments’
“Our next job is to create the pro and con arguments on all these things that we voted to send to the ballot,” commission Chairwoman Norma Turner said at the end of a nearly four-hour meeting Monday.
County Prosecuting Attorney Mark Nichols said there are specific form requirements and word limits for ballot titles under state law.
“So the trick with ballot title construction is to employ brevity and clarity, and try to use language to the extent possible that’s going to be understandable to your average person,” Nichols said.
“We try to stray away from use of legalise. We try to use regular language whenever possible.”
Clallam is one of seven counties in the state that operate under a home-rule charter, a type of county constitution that allows citizens to vote on how their government is structured.
Every eight years
A Charter Review Commission is elected every eight years to propose charter amendments.
Most of the items headed for the 2015 ballot were approved by roll call vote Monday. A few were added July 6.
Here’s a rundown of the ballot measures that voters will see in some form this November:
■ Should the three county commissioners be elected by district in both the primary and general elections?
The Charter Review Commission approved this measure 10-4.
■ Should a Charter Review Commission be elected every five years instead of every eight years? Approved 10-4.
■ Should initiatives and referendums be allowed to move to the ballot without transmission through the Board of County Commissioners? Approved 10-4.
■ Should citizens have 120 days rather than 90 days to gather petition signatures for initiatives and referendums? Approved 13-1.
■ Should the Department of Community Development, or DCD, director post return to an appointed position? Approved 10-4.
■ Should Section 1.30 of the charter (relating to county powers under the charter form of government) be amended for consistency? Approved 11-3.
■ Should a charter review commissioner’s one-year term begin Jan. 1 rather than Election Day? Approved 14-0.
■ Should county commissioners be required to vet recommendations from the Charter Review Commission not proposed for ballot measures in public meetings? Approved 14-0.
2016 consideration
Here are the issues that the commission punted to the 2016 ballot to allow time for more study:
■ Should suspended or dismissed county employees have an option to appeal in a public hearing of the commissioners? Approved 12-1 with one abstention.
■ Should a “no party preference” officeholder be replaced by commissioners as they deem appropriate? Approved 12-1 with one abstention.
■ Should an Office of Ombudsman be created? Approved 10-4.
A subcommittee will develop this proposal by Oct. 31.
■ Should the duties of the county administrator be defined with regard to elected officials and the budget process? Approved 13-1.
A subcommittee will develop this proposal by Oct. 15.
Additionally, the Charter Review Commission recommended that the Board of County Commissioners establish a salary review committee.
Much of the discussion centered on the DCD director’s position, which had been appointed as in all other counties until voters approved a charter amendment in 2003 to make it an elected post.
“I do believe this is an extremely important issue,” Charter Review Commissioner Ted Miller said.
“It’s so controversial and so many people want to talk about it that I think the voters should be given the chance to vote for it, regardless of whether we personally are for or against it.”
Most counties recruit a skilled and credentialed professional for the job, Charter Review Commissioner Mike Doherty said.
“Whether you believe in [the elected director] or not isn’t the issue,” Charter Review Commissioner Ken Hays said.
“It’s so controversial, it’s so unique and, frankly, so weird that I really think the voters have the right to be able to reconsider.”
The ombudsman proposal stemmed from an earlier recommendation to create a mechanism to allow the community to investigate a public official.
Charter Review Commissioner Steve Burke said the state Auditor’s Office already investigates elected officials.
“I think the solution’s already there,” he said.
Doherty and Charter Review Commissioner Selinda Barkhuis countered that the Auditor’s Office is often unresponsive.
“I think the current system has a large void,” said Doherty, who studied the ombudsman issue while serving on Clallam County’s first Board of Freeholders in 1976.
King County has an Office of the Ombudsman that manages citizen complaints and investigates allegations of ethical violations and reports of improper governmental action under whistleblower protection laws.
Ballot deadline
Although the ombudsman idea gained traction with the panel, several commissioners raised concerns over the deadline for the 2015 ballot.
Charter Review Commissioner Sue Forde suggested a subcommittee that would develop the proposal for the 2016 ballot.
“It is a good idea,” Burke said. “I just want to be able to do it intelligently.”
Among the proposed measures that fell by the wayside were changing the number of county commissioners from three to five, eliminating the county administrator’s position, banning county officials from serving in charter reviews, restricting non-voter-approved tax increases, creating a finance department and requiring that all land-use ordinances be approved by voters.
“This is exactly what we elect county commissioners for,” Barkhuis said of the latter, “to consider land-use ordinances and be accountable to those decisions.”
Doherty voted no on five of the eight measures that made it to the 2015 ballot.
“I’m just cautious,” he said.
“That’s why I’m generally voting against these smaller things that are difficult to explain to the public.”
________
Reporter Rob Ollikainen can be reached at 360-452-2345, ext. 5072, or at rollikainen@peninsuladailynews.com.
