A proposed charter amendment that would specify how the clerk of the superior court is appointed and limit the clerk’s ability to receive additional duties by ordinance was tabled to the commission’s Sept. 22 meeting after extended debate.

The draft reads in part: “The clerk of the superior court shall be appointed by the county commissioners from a list of at least 3 candidates submitted to them by the superior court judges. The clerk shall be vested with powers, authority, duties, and functions as provided by law of a county clerk and or a clerk of the superior court, except that the clerk shall be subject to the personnel budgeting, purchasing, property control, and records management systems as provided in this charter, ordinance, or resolution as the commissioners may direct.” Commissioner Keisha Richards moved to advance the version now labeled “version 3,” and Commissioner Waldy seconded.

Supporters said the change restores statutory authority and codifies the clerk’s existing practice. “She didn’t want the county commissioners to be able to give her additional duties,” Richards said, describing edits made after feedback from judges and the county clerk. Richards said judges and the clerk had been consulted and that the language is intended to prevent the clerk’s duties from being altered by local ordinance while keeping the clerk subject to administrative systems in the charter.

Opponents and several commissioners asked for clearer, plain-language text before taking the amendment to voters. Commissioners repeatedly raised voter education and ambiguity concerns: one commissioner said, “If we’re not understanding what it is, how are they going to understand what they’re voting for?” Another used a concrete example to illustrate the worry, asking whether a jury summons or other routine court action could be challenged if voters misread the amendment.

After debate, a motion to table the amendment to the next meeting passed. Separately, the commission voted on a motion to request a formal opinion from the prosecuting attorney, the superior court judges and the county clerk on the accuracy, need and possible rewording of the third version; that motion failed 5–8. The recorded yes votes were: Commissioner Benedict, Commissioner Boser, Commissioner Pickett, Commissioner Richards and Commissioner Waldy.

Next steps: the amendment remains on the commission agenda for Sept. 22. Commissioners suggested the prosecutor’s office, court staff and the county clerk may still be asked for input, and some members urged drafting a plain-language explanation for voters before any ballot placement.

Ending: The commission did not adopt substantive changes tonight; the item is scheduled for further committee review and will return to the full commission on Sept. 22 for continued consideration.