Welcome to getting audio in the
room from this microphone.
>> Yes, they were earlier
testing in the. They have
everything tested.
>> Okay. Can you hear me in the
room? Perfect. Good morning.
Welcome to the Clark County
Charter Review commissions.
District one, town hall. My
name is Patrick. I am one of
your elected charter review
commissioners from district one.
>> I am Anne Donnelly, a
charter review commissioner,
district one as well. Thank you
for being here.
>> Okay, so today we're just
going to move through a
presentation. Then we'll make
time for audience questions and
then have some discussion. So
just the standard town hall
format. And as folks trickle in,
we can pause and go back as
need be. But yeah, we'll go
ahead and get started. So just
a quick disclaimer. All of the
content that we're going to
present today is from the
neutral standpoint, as we're
here on behalf of the Charter
Review Commission. It will not
involve our personal opinions
or politics. So the Charter
Review Commission is comprised
of 15 elected commissioners,
three from each of the five
county councilor districts. And
today we are in district one.
So this town hall, the goal is
to inform you about the process
and proposed amendments on the
ballot and answer any questions
about the Commission's work,
receive feedback about the
process and the amendments.
We're not here to advocate for
or against any specific
amendments, or to provide any
commentary on the suggestions
or comments moving forward, the
Charter Review Commission,
again, is a 15 member elected
body, was elected in November
of 2025, with three members
from each county council
district. The Charter Review
Commission is empowered to
propose, consider and place
amendments on the ballot to
revise the charter. There are
nine such amendments which have
been proposed for the 2026
ballot, and there are some
voters pamphlets on a table by
the door here in the library,
so feel free to pick one up on
your way out if you haven't
received yours at home already
and are curious about what the
actual language is in the
pamphlet for each of those
amendments. No amendments to
the charter may be adopted
without a majority vote of the
people, and the Commission
determines where or sorry, what
is on the ballot for voters to
approve or reject in this cycle.
So what did that process look
like? It started of spring and
started in spring of 2026. We
had initial proposals that were
presented to the commission by
individual commissioners. That
was our first reading process.
Five affirmative votes were
needed to move those forward.
They went to a second reading
with eight affirmative votes
needed to move those forward.
We revised, refined and
presented a more detailed
summary of the proposals. At
that time. Those went through a
committee study process where
committees were formed to
analyze the proposals, revise
them, seek any feedback from
affected departments of the
county and other stakeholders,
and seek feedback from the
prosecuting Attorney's office
and financial services. That
brought us to a committee
presentation where the
committees presented their
final proposal to the
Commission. The Commission
debated those proposals and it
needed eight affirmative votes
to move forward from that step.
Then from there, the successful
proposals went to drafting our
drafting committee, finalized
them into an appropriate format,
which was then reviewed by the
prosecuting attorney's office.
All of those final proposals
went to a final vote, and eight
votes were needed to send those
to the ballot for voter
approval. Which takes us to
where we are now with those
being placed on the ballot for
the 2026 general election. That
process will repeat for items
that may be on the 2027 ballot,
and possibly even until the
2028 ballot. That's still a bit
up in the air as of the last
meeting that we had. So
throughout that process, we do
want to hear from the public.
So we're collecting feedback,
doing town halls such as the
one that we're at here today
and seeking public comment at
our meetings. So our meetings
will resume. They generally are
Wednesdays at 5 p.m. they're
not weekly currently. They will
begin to be weekly again in
January of 2027. And we also
have an online public comment
forum. And you can email the
Charter Review Commission at
charter review@clark.la.gov.
That's charter
review@clark.wa.gov. You may
also email individual members
of the commission and find
those emails on the charter
review website. So we have an
email newsletter to which you
can sign up for if you're
interested. So just a brief
look at that timeline on the
screen here there is a graph
that shows from September to
August, which identifies the
different steps throughout that
timeline, which the Commission
went through for these proposed
amendments. It begins with idea
identification and sharing and
reintroductions moves to first
readings, then second readings,
committee reports, then
drafting, and a final vote.
There are town halls in
September into October, which
is where we are now. And there
will be town halls again in the
spring from March to about June.
Throughout this whole part of
the process, the public comment
form will remain open. So this
is just to look forward to what
our process will be for this
current session that takes us
into our proposed amendments,
our proposed charter amendments
for this cycle are. There are,
of which there are nine are
proposed charter amendment 19
concerning a limitation on
consecutive terms for County
Council members. Proposed
charter amendment 20 concerning
a revised budget transparency
process. Proposed Charter
amendment 21 concerning revised
Council powers regarding boards
and commissions. Proposed
Charter amendment 22 concerning
a clarification of nonpartisan
office elections. Proposed
Charter amendment 23 concerning
a required annual report.
Publication by the County
Manager. Proposed Charter
Amendment 24 concerning a
requirement for housing impact
analysis. Proposed Charter
amendment 25 concerning the
requirement of supermajority
approval by Council for County
Taxes. Proposed Charter
amendment 26 concerning the
initiative, meaning initiative
and referendum process and
proposed Charter Amendment 27
concerning legislative branch
performance audits. So the next
slides will dive a bit into
each one of those. Just a brief
overview of them. Again, this
is from a nonpartizan
standpoint and a presentation
on behalf of the commission. So
I'm just going to read the text
as written. And we can get into
some questions towards the end.
So number 19, concerning the
limitation on consecutive terms
for county council members,
this creates a term limit of
three consecutive terms for
members of the county council.
And once a member has served
three consecutive terms, they
must sit out of office for a
four year term before running
for county council again.
Number 20, concerning a revised
budget transparency process
modifies the deadlines for the
creation and presentation of
the county budget by moving
some dates earlier in the year,
requires an additional public
meeting to present. The budget
requires the County Manager to
publish their budget
instructions to county offices
on a public facing website, and
requires specified budget
documents and supporting
materials to be published on
the public facing website.
Proposed Charter Amendment 21
concerning revised council
powers regarding boards and
commissions. Allows the County
Council to nominate individuals
to serve on all county boards
and commissions except the
Ethics Commission. Currently,
the council's only allowed to
nominate individuals to three
boards or commissions, and the
county manager is solely
responsible for nominating the
rest. The county manager would
retain the authority to
nominate as well. This change
provides Kol authority over
nominations and this does not
change the appointment process.
Charter amendment 22 concerning
a clarification of nonpartisan
office elections. This
amendment would eliminate the
primary election for county
nonpartisan offices, all
elected executive and council
offices in Clark County were
only 1 or 2 candidates filed to
seek the office. Those
candidates would automatically
be placed on the general
election ballot. The amendment
keeps the elections of those
offices in even numbered years.
Proposed amendment 23
concerning a required annual
report publication by the
County Manager. This proposed
amendment would require the
County Manager to present an
annual report in a public
meeting. Under the current
charter, the County Manager may
do so, but it is not a
requirement. This amendment
creates a requirement for the
County manager to publish
broadly the annual report. The
term, published broadly, was
intentionally kept vague to
allow the county to determine
the best means of accomplishing
this goal. Proposed Charter
Amendment 24 concerning a
requirement for housing impact
analysis. This amendment would
require the county to publish a
housing impact analysis before
the county adopts rules that
could affect housing. The
analysis would describe
potential effects on housing
supply, land available for
housing permit timelines,
parking requirements and
housing related costs. The
amendment sets minimum
standards and expectations for
the analysis, but it does not
determine the means or
structure of the analysis.
Those decisions are left to the
council and county Manager to
determine. Proposed amendment
25 concerning the requirement
of supermajority approval by
Council for County taxes. This
amendment would require a
supermajority vote of the Clark
County Council to create a new
Councilmanic tax, or raise the
rate of an existing one. A
supermajority is defined as at
least two thirds of the Council.
Under the current council size.
That means four votes out of
five would be required to raise
a tax. This amendment does not
change the process by which the
county can refer tax increases
to the voters, which requires a
simple majority. Proposed
amendment 26 concerning the
initiative. Many. Initiative
and referendum process. This
amendment would lower the
signature threshold required to
get an initiative or referenda
on the ballot in Clark County,
from 10% to 8% of voters in the
previous gubernatorial election.
This amendment would allow
initiatives that failed to get
enough signatures to turn the
initiative into a mini
initiative, where the council
must have a hearing and
consider the proposal. This
amendment would authorize the
county auditor's office to use
randomized statistical sampling
to verify petition signatures.
Proposed amendment 27
concerning legislative branch
performance audits. The
amendment would make clear that
the County Council may conduct
or cause to be conducted
performance and program audits
to review the effectiveness and
efficiency of county programs
and operations authorized. The
council to conduct or
commission performance audits
of county programs and
operations, and establish
ordinances defining the
performance, auditing process
and contracting and contracting
process for seeking outside
auditing. Any performance
audits conducted under this
amendment would be done on an
as needed basis, rather than on
a fixed schedule. The audits
conducted under this authority
would be in addition to the
audits required by state law
and not a replacement. So thank
you for bearing with me while I
read through all of that. Those
are all of the proposed
amendments that will be on the
ballot in November and are in
the voters pamphlet currently
to read about as well. So what
we're looking for here is just
to get your feedback. I would
ask that just to aid in case
there are a lot of questions,
to try and just bring one
question at a time so that we
can get to everyone's questions.
We're happy to go back as time
permits. We will be noting the
responses. So please make sure
that you state your name for
the record, the subject of your
comment. And we just ask that
everyone keeps their comments
relevant to the Charter Review
Commission and civil to all
that are present. We also have
some paper feedback forms up by
the sign in area, which can be
used to fill out your feedback.
If you have an extended note
that you would like to provide,
we have an online comment form
as well, so I'm going to pause
now. Commissioner Garver has
graciously agreed to run the
microphone around the room as
needed for folks who have
questions, and we're happy to
open the town hall and begin
taking questions, feedback, and
other just statements. Did I
miss anything, Commissioner
Donnelly?
>> No, that's exactly right.
And it's always good. I, I
often speak up to make sure we
use microphones for anyone here
who has a hearing disability,
which is more common than we
would like to think. So always,
always use the microphone. So
what are the questions? Do you
have any questions or did
Patrick do such a fantastic job
that he answered every question?
>> Julie one question is.
>> Oh, tell, tell your name.
>> Tell your name. Julie. Julie
Kepp right. You did not give
any of the pros and cons to the
amendments. And I thought in
the last charter Review
Commission meeting, which was,
was that this week? Yeah. That
you were going to do that as in
a nonpartisan way as possible
after some discussion. AM I
wrong about that?
>> You are absolutely correct.
And I believe we do have those
pros and cons with us, and we
can present them as well.
>> Oh, okay.
>> It was something that, if I
recall correctly from that
meeting in the district five
town hall, someone did ask
about the pros and cons, and so
they read them from the voters
pamphlet. And so that we
determined is permissible as it
still hits the nonpartisan mark.
So I'm happy to read those out.
And I believe Commissioner
Donley has those here to
present.
>> Great. Thank you.
>> And thank you.
>> Two is very important that
we remain impartial, which in
some cases is is difficult. So
we want to be very strict and
fair about that. So we will if
asked for a pro or con, we will
be sticking to the pro, the
official pros and cons. And I
think all of them were
extremely well written and do
probably the best job of
explaining the two positions
for each amendment. So what
about other questions?
>> I, I think perhaps as a
response to that question, we
could go through and present,
for the record, just the pro
statements or the.
>> Statements which you'd like
to hear us do that. Okay.
>> That's good. So why don't we
go back to number start with 19.
>> Yes. Let's go to 19. I'll
read the I'll do 19. Then you
do 20. ET cetera. ET cetera. So
the statement for is more
choices. Fresh voices.
Amendment 19 brings local term
limits to the Clark County
Council by limiting members to
three consecutive terms.
Periodic open seat elections
encourage a. Encourages a
broader field of qualified
candidates, giving voters more
choices. New council members
add different perspectives and
strengthen the council's
connection to Clark County
residents experience still
matters. This amendment values
experience gained through
public service while making
room for others to serve 12
years, gives council members
ample time to learn the job,
represent residents, provide
steady leadership, build
relationships, and complete
major work. This is not a
lifetime ban. Former council
members may run again after one
full term away from the office.
Voters decide more citizens
serve. Voters decide whether to
establish this limit and
continue choosing who serves in
each election. Amendment 19
simply limits how many
consecutive terms a person may
serve on the council. The
amendment expands public
service opportunities and
prevents long term incumbency
from becoming a problem on the
county Council. Clear rules
same council role. The
amendment establishes clear
rules that apply equally to
council members. Changing
council positions does not
restart the count. Current
service and earlier terms
served without a break count.
Toward this limit, the council
remains Clark County's elective
legislative body with the same
powers and responsibilities.
Vote to approve amendment 19
and bring reasonable term
limits to Clark County. And
that was written by. And the
committee is Brandon Erickson,
chair. Dorothy Gasque, Liz Shaw.
So the statement against. We
asked the voters of Clark
County to reject term limits on
count. County councilors and
vote no. Voters should continue
to decide whom to reelect to
the Clark County Council term
limits a solution in search of
a problem. Clark County
councilors are elected to four
year terms. At that time. Each
councilor faces voters and
makes their case for reelection.
No Clark County councilor or
commissioner has served more
than two terms in 35 years.
Voters, not the charter, decide,
decided to remove those who
overstayed their welcome. Term
limits empowers special
interests. The county council
makes important decisions on a
broad range of issues taxation,
land use, transportation and
public health. Councilors need
at least one term to learn the
complexities of their role.
Term limits reduce the
institutional knowledge shared
by returning councilors. As a
result, councilors might rely
on outside interest groups or
executive branch officials to
guide their decision making.
These people do not face term
limits and in some cases, never
face the voters term limits.
Ignore voter preferences
limiting a councilor to three
consecutive terms restricts
voter choice. Popular
councilors who represent the
people well may earn another
term. Unresponsive councilors
may not. In this way, elections
hold councilors accountable a
lame duck, an official who
can't be reelected because of
term limits may not work to
represent voters. When a
councilor does a poor job, the
voters should decide their
political future. Vote no on
proposed amendment 19 that was
written by Morgan Holmgren and
other members of the committee
are Liz Cline and Chuck green.
Should I continue and read the
rebuttals?
>> I think we can just stick
with the.
>> There are rebuttals, as you
know, and then there are
rebuttals of rebuttals, which.
Which is great. I think there's
so much good information.
There's almost like a mini
debate right on these two pages.
And I really appreciate that.
Julie.
>> Sorry, Cathy.
>> You know, sitting next to
you.
>> So my problem with that, I
didn't realize until till I got
involved in this process is
that the pros and cons
statements are written by
whoever is selected by the
committee to, to, to write them.
It doesn't necessarily mean
that the person on these pro
and con committees know what
they're talking about. In a
couple of cases, nobody
volunteered. I think one of
yours to write a con statement
and another one. It seemed kind
of obvious to me that the
person who wrote the con
statement didn't quite
understand the amendment under
discussion. So how. Useful, I
mean, how much can a voter rely
on them in the long, you know,
you don't know the I don't know
how to describe it. Do you know
what I'm getting at?
>> I do, I do understand it
seems a little obscure as to
how these committees and
especially the chair, how are
they set up? And I can I can
say with with great assurance
that the people who are
advancing this amendment think
long and hard about who should
be on that committee because
they want to they want to
convince the voters who are who
maybe only look at this, this
page for one minute, two
minutes. They want it to be the
most convincing that it can
possibly be. And, and so they
do their best job. And the con
people, they do their best job.
And if it doesn't seem always
of the similar quality
throughout, that is just the
way it goes. And they do their
best and they think long and
hard and it's very difficult to
to put your words into the,
into the word limit. So, you
know, I hear you, but it's an
imperfect process, like so many
others of our of our system.
It's an imperfect process. But
the others are worse. I believe
Churchill observed. Yeah.
>> I think it's also important
to add that that's also another
data point in your
consideration, right? So if you
read a statement, whether it's
a pro or con statement and you
feel like that person might not
have a full grasp of the issue,
that to me is another data
point in how I decide, you know,
how I'm going to to vote on
that, right? Someone is trying
to convince me of something
that they don't fully
understand, versus someone is
trying to convince me of
something that they do
understand or what have you. So,
you know, irrespective of
whichever amendment we're
talking about, whatever the
process is, I think the way
that you feel after reading a
statement, whether it's pro or
con, is another data point in
how you make that decision. And
so I would just add that.
>> I look at the one where you
didn't get a con statement. And
I mean, it's pretty innocuous
amendment, but that could lead
someone to believe, well, it
must be a great amendment if
nobody's against it. You know
what I mean? I mean, again, it
goes back to Anne's point.
There's nothing we can do about
it. If nobody steps up, nobody
steps up. And people can make
their own judgment. One final
thing on the pro and con
committees on the ballot is
that I don't believe that the
website or the Facebook or
whatever connected to the pro
or con committee should be an
election website for someone's
personal election. If somebody
is running for an office, they
should not use their personal
election website as the
resource for a an amendment
going on to the charter. And I
looked. I contacted the
elections office, talked to
what's his name, Rich Cooper.
Well, I didn't talk to him. We
emailed back and forth and he
said, that is up to them that
they have no control over what
website or Facebook or whatever
resource you want to put as the
link to your committee in the
voter's pamphlet. And I think
that is. And when you go to
this person's website, election
website, I could not even find
anything about the charter. So
that is really disingenuous and
just bad.
>> So good point. Julie. Good
point. So how about if we go on,
unless there's no further
additional on this, should we
go on? And you you read the
next one.
>> I think it's important just
to to call out, you know, as
you did speak to the elections
office. Clearly that is
something that is permissible.
And so I don't know that we
necessarily have feedback on
that as as a commission. And in
this format, can I give our
personal views? But if the
elections office says that that
is permissible, then it is.
However, I would say, just as I
said to the other question,
that that's another data point,
especially for voters who may
have that other election on
their pamphlet.
>> So I just wanted to vent.
>> Well, we appreciate that.
>> Thank you. That's what this
is. This forum is about. The
opportunity.
>> Okay. So yeah, why don't we
move to 20 concerning revised
budget transparency process. So
the for statement reads, a vote
for a more open and public
budget process is a vote for
the responsible, transparent
and efficient use of taxpayer
funds. In 2025. The first
public presentation of the
budget was October 29th, and
the budget was adopted on
December 2nd. With almost no
public involvement. Most people
are engaged with elections and
holidays during that time. The
amendment moves some county
budget deadlines back slightly,
and requires the first public
presentation of the proposed
budget to be made the first
week of September 2nd
presentation in October, and
the final budget adoption
hearing to be held in November.
Moving the public presentation
to this time will give the
people better visibility to the
county's almost $900 million
budget, give them time to
investigate and provide
feedback, and give the council
more time to consider that
input and direct the process.
There is nothing that the
county does that impacts the
people's lives more than the
adoption of the budget and any
proposed tax increases required
to implement it. The people
should have more visibility to
the deliberative process and
proposed funding, so they can
make sure the budget reflects
the values and priorities of
the people. A budget process
that is more transparent and
facilitates the involvement of
the public will equip us to
work together to meet our
community's future needs and
challenges. And that is that
statement. The statement
against is Vote No on amendment
20 to revise the budget process.
The county already follows
state rules, deadlines and
budget requirements to ensure
the budget is completed
correctly and on time. Adjust
the process, not the charter.
No charter amendment is needed
because the charter already
allows this flexibility, County
leaders and the county council
can add steps or set earlier
deadlines if they want to. The
charter does not need to
include all the details of how
the budget process works. If
better instructions are earlier,
deadlines are needed, county
leaders and councilors can
update the rules and procedures.
The charter sets the basic
rules for county government.
The charter provides the basic
framework for how county
government works. This proposal
adds process details that do
not belong in the charter,
adding these details can make
it harder for the county to
improve the budget process in
the future. Keeping the charter
focused on the big picture
structure gives staff the
flexibility to use the most
effective and efficient budget
process possible. So those are
for 2020. Questions on 20
comments. Okay, then we will
move to 21.
>> Okay. Statement four this is
concerning revised council
powers regarding boards and
commissions. Amendment 21 gives
our county Council the ability
to submit community members for
consideration to the volunteer
boards and commissions that
help keep our county running.
Currently, the Council can only
nominate volunteers to the
Planning Commission, Historic
Preservation Commission and the
Board of Equalization. This
amendment expands that ability
to include other boards and
commissions now and in the
future. With the important
exception of the Ethics Review
Commission. This could
potentially reduce the burden
on county staff to fill spots
on these commissions and
increase the council's ability
to keep these important
volunteer roles filled.
Councilors hear from the
community often, and they can
help ensure that those who want
to contribute can. A yes vote
will make this common sense.
Adjustment to our charter and
there were. There was no con
committee and thus no con
statement.
>> Yes, it says after
recruitment attempts, no person
within the jurisdiction
volunteered to write a
statement against proposed
charter Amendment number 21,
and therefore no statements
were submitted. Okay, okay.
>> Going to 22.
>> Yes. That takes us to. 22
make sure the right slides on
there. Perfect. Okay. The
statement for 22 Charter
Amendment 22 clarifies
Nonpartizan elections. Charter
amendment 22 removes
nonpartisan county races from
the primary ballot when there
are only 1 or 2 candidates and
places them directly on the
general election ballot. This
is how other nonpartisan races
already work, like county
council or sorry, like city
councilors, fire district
commissioners and school board
members. Elections would still
happen in even numbered years.
When most voters turn out in
2021, more than 64% of voters
chose to make all county
offices nonpartisan. They
wanted officials to answer to
all citizens, not just one
party. But the voting process
itself never changed. Today,
every candidate still appears
on the primary ballot, even
when only 1 or 2 people file.
State law already skips
primaries for nonpartisan races
with 1 or 2 candidates. This
amendment applies that same
money saving rule to county
races. Primaries exist to
narrow down large fields of
candidates to the top two vote
getters, with only 1 or 2
candidates. There is nothing
left to narrow. Charter
amendment 22 saves taxpayer
money. Every election costs
taxpayers money. The county
must print and mail ballots and
voters pamphlets and list each
candidate. When a race only has
1 or 2 candidates, listing them
on both the primary and general
election ballot uses taxpayer
dollars unwisely. For instance,
five races on your ballot had
two or fewer candidates file
but still appeared on the
primary ballot. Vote to approve
Charter Amendment 22, save tax
dollars and stop unnecessary
primaries. The For statement
sorry, the Against statement
says the purpose of election is
not simply to produce a winner,
it is to give voters a fair and
informed opportunity to
evaluate those asking to
represent them. Under this
amendment, when two or fewer
candidates file for an affected
county nonpartisan office, the
race would not appear on the
August primary ballot, and the
candidates would not appear in
the primary voters pamphlet.
Voters would lose months of
publicly provided information
about candidates seeking
offices responsible for
elections, public safety,
criminal justice, property
assessment and other vital
services. Elections are the
citizens interview process. The
primary election introduces
candidates, encourages public
discussion and gives voters
time to prepare qualifications
to compare qualifications
before November. It also gives
first time candidates valuable
exposure and feedback about
whether their message is
reaching voters. Incumbents
already have name recognition
and results from previous
campaigns. Eliminating the
primary creates a built in
advantage for incumbents. While
challengers lose months to
introduce themselves and build
public support, supporters cite
election cost savings, but
administrative savings are a
poor trade for delaying voter
information and reducing
opportunities for candidates to
compete fairly. Elections
elections should serve voters
first. The proposed amendment
also embeds even numbered year
county elections in the charter,
when ballots already include
federal and state contests,
voters should retain the
opportunity to reconsider
election procedures in the
future. A county charter should
strengthen public participation,
not diminish it. Vote reject on
proposition 2622, and that is
the against statement that
takes us to 23 unless there are
any other questions on. 22 okay.
We'll go back.
>> So.
>> So I am for this because it
aligns with what the intention
was. It seems like a no brainer
to align these two things up.
Interestingly enough, at the
town hall in district five, two
weeks ago, people were all on
board with not voting yes for
this because they felt like the
amount of money it would save
the council. I mean, save the
taxpayer, save the county,
excuse me, would be nominal
compared to other things, but
they were all on board with
supporting the 1% supermajority
because that would save them
money. And I can't quite line
up. This is just. You know, if
we're going to run bipartisan
races, they should be run like
bipartisan races or nonpartisan,
sorry, nonpartisan. And
honestly, after watching the
Charter Review Commission and
the council, I'm wondering if
with regards to the council and
the commission, if it isn't a
little bit disingenuous, that
we even call those nonpartisan,
many of the commissioners on
the Charter Review Commission
vote in a very partizan way. So
I'm not sure we are aren't
misleading voters by running
these these elections under the
nonpartisan banner. And that's
my editorial for today.
>> Thanks for that.
>> Thank you. We appreciate the
comment.
>> Let me get my own thoughts.
>> Okay. So we're going to 23
statement for amendment 23
makes two key updates to the
charter. It creates a clear
requirement to produce an
annual report of what's
happening in our county
government. And it requires the
report to be published. Broadly.
These requirements strengthen a
foundation of government
transparency and accountability
in Clark County and ensure that
information is easy to find.
Producing and publishing the
report once per year requires a
minimum level of oversight to
our community. Without
overburdening county employees.
Putting this in the charter
ensures that this reporting
doesn't depend upon who's in
office or on staff, and that
the public will always be made
aware of this information. We
ask for your vote for this
common sense update, seeking
improved transparency and
accountability in local
government. The statement
against against charter
amendment amendment number 23,
the primary change the charter
amendment makes to the County
Charter is that the County
Manager must present to the
Council in a public meeting and
publish broadly an annual
statement of the county's
fiscal and governmental affairs
and any other report which they
may deem necessary. The
committee concerns are that the
broad publishing mandate is not
restricted in relation to
county elections. In years that
county elected incumbents are
running for reelection, or the
county has put ballot measures
out to voters. This proposed
publish broadly mandate could
be used to mail out information
prior to the election that
favors county and incumbents or
county ballot measures. Our
committee has noticed that some
tax districts do mail out
glowing, multi-page colored
print annual reports around two
months or less prior to
elections, at which tax hikes
are requested. Committees
against these tax hikes have no
taxpayer funded mailers, ever.
And then she states the state
law. RCW4252185. Restrictions
on mailings by legislators does
not allow legislators to send
mailers at taxpayer expense
during election season,
mandating broad publishing
ignores any election
restrictions that should apply,
and cost constraints that might
limit the manner in which this
information is published. This
amendment should be rejected.
The Charter Review Committee
can fix it next year if they
deem it necessary. Any any
questions about that or
comments?
>> I just want to make a quick
comment about the fact that I
know the people who were on the.
Four committee, and what I love
about it is that there. This
does seem to be a nonpartisan
committee, and I. I would
really encourage the Commission
to have more of this. Both
sides of the aisle on
committees, but more
importantly, both sides of the
aisle. On the study committees,
we had very few people who were
willing to be on a committee
that they were could be against
the amendment, but wanted to be
in a position of exploring it
further. And in one case in
particular, it ended up that
the person who was on the
committee who had started out
against it was on the study
committee. And when it came
time to vote to pass this to
drafting was still against it.
But it it bulked up the
committee. So I really, really
encourage the Commission to try
and do more of that. You know,
being on each other's and
genuinely for the purposes of
making the amendment the best
amendment that they can make it.
Thank you.
>> That's really valuable
feedback. Thank you. And I
think that's something that at
least I'm going to take from
this and make sure that we
relate to the Commission when
we talk about how this town
hall went.
>> Right. And good comment. And
I would point out that part of
of the form that you need to
fill out as a commissioner
advancing amendment is to say
what changes you made that were
the result of hearing from
people who maybe disagreed or
who had some other information.
And so you list what you did to
conform and to make your
amendment better as it went
forward. So that kind of goes
along with what you're saying.
>> Right? Exactly. Right.
>> Shall we go to 24?
>> Yes. Is that you or me?
>> I think it's me.
>> Okay, good.
>> Okay. So the for statement
for proposed amendment 24 reads
better information, better
housing decisions for too many
families. The dream of owning a
home in Clark County is
slipping further out of reach.
This amendment ensures
decisions affecting housing
costs and housing supply are
guided by greater transparency
and better information. Before
new land use and construction
regulations are adopted.
Understanding impacts before
acting this amendment does not
dictate policy outcomes or
prevent the county from
adopting new regulations. It
simply ensures elected
officials and the public have
reliable information about the
potential impacts of important
housing decisions before they
are made. It applies only to
discretionary decisions
initiated by the county, not
routine updates required by
state law. Focusing analysis
where it matters while limiting
unnecessary costs and delays.
Planning for Clark County's
future. Clark County is growing
and the choices we make today
will influence influence by
their families, workers and
future generations can continue
to find opportunity here.
Housing decisions have real
consequences for the cost and
availability of homes. By
identifying potential impacts
before regulations are adopted.
This amendment helps avoid
unintended consequences that
could raise housing costs,
limit housing opportunities or
make it harder for people to
afford a home. In Clark County,
an approved vote supports
transparent, accountable and
informed decision making.
Housing policy should be based
on evidence and understanding,
not guesswork. Families deserve
to know how decisions made
today could affect the cost and
availability of housing
tomorrow. That is the statement
for the statement against reads.
This proposal attempts to
address a pressing policy issue
in the wrong place. The County
charter. This amendments
required reports would provide
little benefit to the public,
but the cost associated with
creating each of them would be
paid by taxpayers. Please vote
no on amendment 24.
Micromanages Policy Process.
The charter provides the
framework for county government
amendments not relating to the
structure, organization and
governance of the county are
not appropriate. This proposed
amendment is an example of
overreach and micromanagement.
Housing and land use policy and
priorities should be left to
the Council, where current
needs can be assessed. At
public hearings. The county
already hears about how its
decisions affect housing costs
through the Development,
Engineering Advisory Board and
the Planning Commission.
Housing affordability not
caused by county policy. Home
construction costs are outside
of the county's control.
Construction engineering
standards are driven largely by
state and federal regulations.
Local land use planning
decisions, codes and policies
do not cause housing shortages.
If they did, the rate of
purchases by first time home
buyers and median buyer
households would be lower in
Clark County than in any in
other Washington counties. This
is not the case. Not a solution.
Please vote no. The proponents
of amendment 24 state this
amendment will help reduce
unintended cost increases on
housing. More analysis will not
solve the problem of housing
affordability. This amendment
would cost taxpayers for. It
would cost taxpayers for issues.
The County cannot control high
interest rates and state and
federal mandates vote no, and
that is the statement against.
>> Any questions or comments on
that one.
>> Okay, okay. We'll move on to
20.
>> Right on to 25. This. Oh go
ahead.
>> One question.
>> I'm wondering why the
amendment sets minimum
standards and expectations for
the analysis, but does not
determine the means of
structure of the analysis. So
this is quid pro quo. Or is
this at will. Because the
structure is very important to
the analysis as well as meeting
the standards and expectations
in a proper manner and a proper
process. So I'm wondering why
that is in there. And I know
you cannot answer that probably
right now, but it does not make
any sense that the county
manager has, you know, is
basically still equivalent as a
number six commissioner. That
is a little bit difficult to
understand, where it's really a
separation of powers.
>> And can you please state
your name for the record?
>> Mayada Allen.
>> Thank you.
>> Does it make sense to pass
that? Good question on to the
the pro committee. Can we do
that and have them rather than
having her have to wait or not
get a good answer? The best
answer I can make that happen,
and I would be happy to do that.
>> Because originally when we
started the charter committee
way back when with Betty Sue
and Lucas and all the other
usual suspects, including
Henderson.
>> Yes.
>> There was a separation of
power intent. However, what the
practice is a co-equal decision
making and. It's a de facto
number six commissioner, and
that should be reanalyzed. The
manager should be reporting,
but not quote unquote, making
decisions.
>> Since you and I are in in
touch, we know each other. You
could send that question to me
and I will make sure that you
get an answer. Thank you. Okay.
Let's see. We're going on to
2625025 okay. And is that me?
Yeah. Okay. Okay. Here is the,
the statement for tax increases
should require broad support
when families and businesses
are already paying more for
everyday expenses. Government
should think carefully before
asking taxpayers to pay even
more. This amendment raises the
standard for future council
approved tax increases by
requiring a minimum two thirds
affirmative vote of the County
Council before a new
Councilmanic tax may be
assessed, levied or increased.
A supermajority requires
council members to work across
political lines and build
greater consensus before
raising taxes. Requiring broad
support also provides greater
tax predictability for
households and businesses,
encouraging long term
investment and responsible
planning. This does not change
any current tax or fee. It does
not reduce or eliminate any
current county service or
program. Clark County will
continue providing essential
services, including public
safety, roads and parks.
Instead. This amendment
protects taxpayers from future
tax increases approved by only
a narrow majority, while
encouraging future county
councils to build broader
support before asking taxpayers
to pay more. At a time when
families and businesses face
rising costs. This added
safeguard helps ensure tax
increases are carefully
considered before they are
approved and approved. Vote
supports greater consensus
before raising taxes. Tax
increases deserve broader
support. That's the pro
statement. And going on to the
con statement, not a tax cut.
Please vote no on the proposed
supermajority amendment. This
amendment will not cut your
taxes because Most taxes are
not set by the County Council.
Counties already have tight
limits on raising taxes, and
voters must approve extra taxes,
such as bonds and levies.
County council has not taken
tax increases lightly in seven
of the last 14 years. They not
approve the 1% property tax
increase allowed by law.
Threatened services you rely on
by not increasing taxes by 1%.
Clark County has had a hard
time keeping up with services
people expect, and that the
state requires a supermajority
requirement makes it harder for
the council to fund law and
justice, which is 73% of the
county's budget. Approximately
one third of this goes to the
sheriff's office maintaining
roads, providing timely permits,
funding parks and ensuring
water quality might also
decline without the 1% increase.
Gives veto power to a
supermajority. The
supermajority requirement
sounds like a simple two thirds
rule, but with only five
councilors, two thirds means
four out of 5 or 80% of
councilors must agree. This
would make Clark County the
most restrictive in Washington,
allowing two councilors to to
control county funding puts
public services at risk. Vote
no on proposed amendment 25,
and that is the con statement.
Any any questions, comments,
etc. welcome. Okay,
>> Julie Cup again. So I'm on
the con committee. I'm the tax
cut or not a cut or services
being threatened. My main thing
with this is it is just
undemocratic. And that probably
won't hold sway with many
people. But Washington state
voters voted for to allow
Council to implement these
councilmanic taxes, taxes that
they don't need to go to the
voters for. And. Therefore,
Council should be able to say
yea or nay to these tax
councilmanic taxes on a simple
majority of three out of five.
And the fact of the matter is
that that is what has happened
in the past 14 years. Seven out
of the 14 times the five member
County Council has voted not to
take the councilmanic tax. So
this is a pro, not a problem.
This is not a problem that they
pass this tax automatically
every single year. They're very
cognizant of when they should
take it or don't take it. Or
maybe there's just councilors
who are never going to take it.
I do know in the district five
League of Women Voters Forum,
and also it's reported in the
Colombian. One councilor has
said straight up councilor
running for district five
position on the county council
that he is not going to take
this tax. I don't see how you
can say I am never going to
take that tax, and you're not
even on the council. You don't
even see how the county
functions, and you have very
limited information. And I know
for a fact that at the last
budget discussion in December
of 2025, councilor for district
four, Matt Little made a point
of saying that he is fiscally
conservative, but that he
believes he's fiscally
conservative. He does not take
a tax willy nilly, but that he
has seen the county in action.
They run very lean. They do the
best they can with the
resources they have. And so he
voted for this. There was a
discussion. There's one
councilor already on the
council who doesn't ever vote
for it unless it's regarding
public safety. Other than that,
she's an out on every single
one. So what happens is if you
demand four out of five, you're
going to end up giving the
minority the two out of five
and a a disproportionate amount
of power and influence on the
council. And the idea I'm going
to keep going, the idea that
you are going to convince these
people that they should. I
don't know what is pictured
here, would have to happen to
convince the councilor of
district two and maybe the
councilor of district five, if
he's elected to not take. It is
beyond me. So it's giving their
constituents a disproportionate
amount of power over everybody
else in the county. And that is
my thing. But yes, it would
impact services. So when people
complain my taxes are too high,
blah, blah, blah, that's fine.
But the county needs a certain
amount of money to function.
They're already in a structural
deficit. You impose this on
them and you are going to
create a situation that they
have even less control over
what to do with their finances.
So I am so against this. I
can't even stand it.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you for the extended
feedback. Other comments on 25.
Okay. We'll move on to 26.
>> I think so, yeah.
>> The for statement for
Charter amendment 26 reads
charter amendment 26 makes
citizen participation more
achievable. Charter amendment
26 makes it easier for Clark
County citizens to have a voice
in their government. The
amendment would lower the
verified signature requirement
for initiative and referendum
petitions from 10% to 8%. It
would also let valid signatures
from an unsuccessful initiative
transfer to a mini initiative
once the 3% threshold is met,
so public support is not wasted
for petitions affecting only
unincorporated Clark County.
The required number of
signatures would be calculated
using the same method as
petitions affecting the entire
county. The county auditor may
also use random statistical
sampling to verify petition
signatures by sampling at least
3000 submitted signatures. The
amendment also protects
petitioners by ensuring that no
petition can be rejected based
solely on statistical sampling.
According to the elections
office, statistical sampling
would reduce staff time when
reviewing signatures and would
lower county costs. This
amendment is a practical step
toward making Clark County
government more responsive to
its citizens. The charter gives
residents the power of
initiative and referendum, but
since Clark County adopted Home
Rule in 2014, no citizen
position petition has qualified
for the ballot. One major
barrier is the current
signature requirement. This
amendment would make the
process more accessible while
preserving the safeguards
needed to ensure petitions have
meaningful public support with
bipartisan support, Charter
amendment 26 offers a balanced
way to strengthen public
participation while keeping
important safeguards in place.
Vote to approve proposed
charter amendment 26. That was
the fourth statement, the
statement reads. In 2022 in
Clark County, a similar measure
to reduce the required
signature percentages for
initiatives and referenda was
rejected by 59% of the vote.
While this version adds a
technical change in how the
elections office certifies
initiatives by permitting
statistical sampling for
signature verification, the
proposed lower thresholds are
the same as the ones which
voters rejected in 2022, with
attention focused on election
integrity. All signatures
should be verified. Does
lowering the threshold for
initiatives work? Both Whatcom
and Snohomish counties passed
charter amendments to lower
these thresholds. Even with
these lower thresholds, no
initiatives have made it to the
ballot. Please vote against
this amendment. That was the
against statement. Are there
any questions or comments or
feedback on proposed Charter
Amendment 26? Now that we've
read the for and against. Okay.
>> If not, we'll go on to
proposed charter Amendment
number 27. The statement four
reads, a vote for performance
audits is a vote for
responsible, transparent and
efficient use of taxpayer funds.
This amendment would give the
County Council, the
representatives of the people
the power to conduct audits of
county departments or programs
as part of their legislative
duties. Performance auditing
has been shown to improve the
efficient use of funds in
government operations. The
County auditor already conducts
routine audits of county
finances. The amendment does
not duplicate or replace those
efforts. This amendment
specifically addresses auditing
department operations or
programs. It grants the power
to conduct independent audits
to the body that approves the
budget for those departments
and operations. The county
council, auditing departments
or programs for effectiveness
should be one of the
considerations for continuing a
program or operation. Other
Washington charter counties
have given this power to their
representatives and believe
auditing is a way to maximize
cost savings, improve program
effectiveness and efficiency,
and maintain best practices.
This amendment gives the
Council the discretion to
define the scope of the audit
and determine if a county
employee, the auditor's
department or an outside
contractor will conduct it.
This flexibility will maximize
the efficient use of the audit
process. Direct access to
information produces better
policy, and the Council is
responsible for policy in the
budget. Give the Council this
tool to do it better. Vote yes
on proposition 27. Performance
audits. The con statement reads.
Please vote no on Charter
Amendment 27. County councilors
can already request audits. Any
Clark County resident can also
ask for an audit. An audit,
oversight committee reviews
requests, and a county
councilor is always on that
committee. The council already
has a voice in the audit audit
process. State provides free
outside review if a councilor
wants an outside review. The
Washington State Auditor's
office already offers one for
free. County staff have used
this service before. Hiring
private audit firms costs
taxpayer money, and those firms
do not answer to voters. We
should not spend extra money on
something we already can get at
no cost. Extra audits will add
expenses. Our county already
has strong audits. We pay the
Washington State Auditor's
office 350,000 to 400,000 each
year for required audits.
Amendment 27 would add new
costs, not reduce them. It's
fiscal analysis says it could
cost taxpayers at least
$100,000 more each year. Costs
could grow even higher. For
example, Pierce County spends
about 600,000 a year on
performance audits. Why pay
more in taxes? Adding outside
audits does not guarantee
savings. Their recommendations
can increase costs instead of
reducing them. Our county
already has a limited tax base
and struggles to fund important
to fund important services like
public safety. We should not
spend taxpayer money on reviews
we already can get for free.
Vote no on Charter Amendment 27.
Any questions about that?
>> I do.
>> Have a question. So
regarding this one, the council
can ask for an audit. Would
there be a vote on the council
to ask for an audit or would be
in the purview of each
councilor if they wanted an
audit, to ask the county
manager, I want an audit on
this now. Go do it. Or would it
be, hey, Council, I want to
conduct this audit. What do you
think? Let's take a vote.
>> As I read it. And
Commissioner Ortega may be sure
to give your view. This would
give the county council the
right to call for an audit. And
that would be a majority vote.
AM I correct?
>> I'm not entirely.
>> It doesn't say anything
about that.
>> I don't have the text of the
resolution in front of me, but
I can try and find that.
>> Yes, it could be that any
single council member could
could call for an audit, but I
believe unless it's made clear
it would be a majority vote, I
don't think it means that any
one council member can
independently call for.
>> An audit. I see what you're
saying. It says gives the
council, but it doesn't say,
you know, a majority of the
council or forfeit.
>> That's true. It is unclear.
>> That just occurred to me.
But the other thing regarding
this, maybe if it said a
majority of the council would
have to agree to push this
audit, but otherwise I could
see councilors being pushing
political, I don't know,
shenanigans. Maybe they don't
feel like one of the
departments is necessary or
whatever, has a pet peeve with
them and can insist on doing
what I would consider punitive
audits. So I think that is an
important thing to know.
>> The text of the resolution
says the county council may
conduct or cause to be
conducted performance and
program audits to review the
effectiveness. ET cetera. ET
cetera. So my read of that is
that the council as a body may
conduct a cost to be conducted.
It doesn't say an individual
councilor, but I'm certain that
as many things in life, that
interpretation probably will
come during implementation as
opposed to speaking to it.
>> Another thing regarding this
amendment, but other ones too,
is. County Councilor Sue
Marshall chair Sue Marshall
wanted to put forward. The
council put wanted to have the
Council put forward a charter
amendment that there would be a
fiscal analysis included in the
voters pamphlet for each of
these charter amendments going
forward, and the council did
not vote to do that. But I feel
it is critical that voters have
access to that fiscal analysis
that is available on the
website. Related. But people
people I don't know how willing
they're going to be to want to
dig for information. And I
really feel like in some of
these amendments, it's critical
to know what the cost would be
pro and con for some of these
amendments. For example, 27, if
we have to pay an if they have
to pay an outside auditor to
conduct an audit, it's going to
cost a substantial amount of
money. And you'd know that if
you looked up the fiscal
analysis, you don't know it
from this. You see what I'm
saying? So I hope, are you
doing it. But councilor puts
forward an amendment to have a
fiscal analysis attached to
these charter amendments for
the benefit of the voter.
Thanks.
>> Thank you. That's good
feedback. That takes us through
all of the amendments that are
proposed this cycle. Oh, we've
got one more question. All
right.
>> Molodih Kaulen again, one of
the things that you do have a
good thought over there.
However, it needs to be taken a
little bit further as to
provide how many people voted
for it or how many council
people had voted for it. Who
who seconded it and what the
vote was. And then also to
quote unquote, establish a
protocol to follow up and do a
little bit better, quote
unquote monitoring than this
particular language allows for.
>> I just want to make sure
that I'm hearing the feedback
clearly. Are you saying that we
should have who voted for it?
Who seconded it as far as the
charter amendments, or is that
specific to your feedback on
the.
>> Specific duties concerning
legislative brand of
performance audits?
>> Okay.
>> Thank you. And that is very
important to have a procedure
and a follow up and
implementation. If there is a
problem, there's absolutely
nothing that says any quote
unquote protocol as to how to
implement this particular piece.
>> So that actually I do have
maybe not the answer that you
were looking for, but there is
text in the resolution that
says the county council shall
establish by ordinance within
the legislative branch, an
independent county performance
auditing process. So this
proposed amendment leaves that
implementation to the county
council.
>> Never knowing as to who the
county Council is going to be.
It would be prudent and
responsible to provide a
process as part of this
amendment. Otherwise, it's a
whatever. Thank you.
>> Thank you for the feedback.
Okay, just leaving some space
in case there are other
questions or feedback. Anything
else that comes up or bubbles
to the surface for folks, but
seeing none, we'll move on to
I'm going to put this slide
back up so that maybe folks who
are watching online can see
that there is a link to the
online comment form if they
weren't able to attend in
person, but we thank them for
paying attention to this
process all the same. And if
there are no further questions,
I think anything for a closing
statement, Commissioner
Donnelly.
>> No, I would I would say that.
Do you are there any comments
relating to possible 2027
amendments that you would like
to see addressed? Julie, I
would suspect you may have 5 or
6, but that would be this part
of our agenda would allow time
for you to make any comments on
something that you would like
to see us address in 2027, and
if not, we can we can adjourn
or we can.
>> Oh, I have one comment.
>> Okay.
>> Just a general comment.
>> This is just a general
comment on process. So I was
rewatching the July 8th Charter
Review Commission meeting where
you voted on the amendments.
And prior to that, the meeting
before or so, there was a long
discussion about, you know, how
many how how to do the public
comment for the July 8th
meeting. Was it going to be
three minutes at the beginning,
or was it going to be one
minute? You were allowed one
minute to make a public comment
on whatever charter amendments
you wanted to, to talk about,
or was it going to be three
minutes plus one minute for it
went on and on and on. And the
general feeling I got from the
whole discussion, except for
from Commissioner Chrisley, was
that, oh, for God's sake,
people had all this time to
offer public comment. We're
going to end up with this very
long meeting that we don't want
to have to devote that much
time to. So let's figure out
the quickest way we can get
people in and out. And I felt
that was and, and Commissioner
Chrisley made the point of like,
this is the job you're signed
up to do. And you see this with
the council too, like with the
comp plan update, a lot of
people showed up at the meeting
where the the final meeting
where the councilors were going
to hear from the public on the
comp plan and all the different,
you know, whatever they're
called, related to the comp
plan. And there was a lot of
people who showed up and the
councilors then decided, well,
this is just too much. We're
going to be here too long.
Let's cut it to two minutes,
from 3 minutes to 2 minutes or
I've been in battleground where
they cut the meeting from 3
minutes to 1 minute. People
crafted their comments. They
took the time to craft a
comment. They took the time to
go down there or, you know,
whatever to make their comment.
And now it's pretty much like,
oh, jeepers, we got to get out
of here, folks. And I would
just suggest that the that the
commission you signed,
commissioner, signed up for
this. You be more not you to
personally, but you know what I
mean, that the commission be
more what's the word? Amenable
to whenever people show up to
make a comment. Maybe people
hadn't watched the whole
process and made comments
throughout. Maybe this was
their one chance to make a
comment. And now you're saying,
okay, well, you either get the
three minutes or you get the
one minute and by God, get your
butt up there, make your
comment and get to your seat
because we want this to move.
And my feeling is if that
meeting had gone till midnight,
it goes till midnight. This is
your job. So I would like to
pass that on to some of the
commissioners who were like, oh
boy, we they could one or the
other. We can't be sitting here
all day listening to comments.
They had time before this to
make their comments. The other
thing is, is I would have liked
discussion at that meeting
between the commissioners. It
was pretty much whatever went
to drafting was put on the
ballot more or less. I think it
was. I think it was. And my
feeling is if it's just a pro
forma thing, just batch them,
send them along. The idea that
you didn't have a discussion
because people might have
changed their mind. And that's
the other thing regarding
public comment. If you're going
to want public comment, you got
to give the public the feeling
that you really care about the
public comments. Not that
you're just putting up with
this, but your mind's already
made up. And I feel that's
really important because at
every meeting you said, we want
public comment, we appreciate
public comment. And then you
get to the last meeting when
you're going to vote on these.
And it's like, oh boy, we just
want to get this public comment
over with. That was the
impression I got. So yeah,
that's just for next time.
Thanks.
>> Thank you Julie.
>> Well good morning. Can you
hear me?
>> Yes, yes.
>> Okay. Terry Allen, just a
quick comment here. Years ago
the our commissioners made a
very. A decision that had a
tremendous impact on the
population. There was quite a
crowd that showed up, and it
was almost unmanageable. But
they decided that you you came
here and showed up. Everybody
gets three minutes period,
lined up. They ran as smoothly
as they could. My turn came
about a 12:45 in the morning,
my wife shortly thereafter. But
it was important, very
important at that time for all
the people that were there to
have their full say. So I would
encourage I would very much
encourage, you know, whatever
else, whatever else is on your
schedule. Let the people speak.
Thank you.
>> And is there a general
feeling that three minutes is
appropriate not to be reduced
to 2 or 1? Okay. Thank you.
>> Molodih Allen. And when I
was a planning commissioner, we
long time ago, for six years we
stayed until 2 or 230 in the
morning listening to everybody,
because it was very important
for us to hear what the
community had to say. Even
though we were volunteers, we
were not paid, of course, but
we did have a responsibility
that we were appointed to. It
was our responsibility to make
sure that everybody was heard,
especially when they made so
much time and effort to get
ready to tell us what exactly
they thought about the subject
or the process or the proposals.
And to me, this is very
irresponsible not to allow
people to talk about it and not
allow them to use their couple
of minutes now, but this is
getting worse, and I'm sorry to
say that this needs to change.
>> Thank you.
>> Well, I'm not aware that we
ever didn't allow somebody to
make public comment, but I do
hear your point.
>> I think that's really
valuable feedback as well. I do
remember the conversation that
you're talking about, and I was
very much on the side of, we
should just let people speak
because again, that is the job.
So we will take that feedback
and pass it along to the rest
of the commission. I hope that
they are as receptive to it,
and yeah, ideally that will we
will continue to make sure that
everyone gets their their time.
But of course, I can't speak
for the chair and the executive
committee, so all we can do is
pass along the feedback.
>> I'm going to mention it to
at district two tomorrow.
>> I think that's helpful. And
I'll just go around the room
one more time and make sure I'm
not missing out on any comments,
feedback, questions. Leaving
space for that. Okay, then I
believe if no one else has any
other comments or questions.
Thank you so much for attending
the district one Clark County
Charter Review Commission Town
Hall about our 2026 proposed
amendments to the Clark County
Charter, which are on the
ballot. Since we are in the
library, I can confidently
state there are many voters
pamphlets out there on the
table. If you haven't received
one at your house and you're
curious to dive more into the
pro and con statements that we
read today, or look at some of
the resolution text that's in
there as well. Again, thank you
so much for attending. Thank
you to those who watched online
or will watch in the future.
Thank you for caring about the
changes coming to your county
and for caring about local
government, because that's
really, really important. Not
more than ever.
>> So yes, thank you for coming.
You are among the most
dedicated voters, and I want to
say that I have been proud to
be here with you. Thank you
very much.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you for