CRC outreach survey returns 1,457 responses; commission directs water committee to pursue advisory recommendation

At its June 9 meeting, the Clallam County Charter Review Commission reviewed results of an outreach survey the commission27s outreach team conducted and heard subcommittee reports on water and ethics. Outreach staff reported 1,457 total responses and presented question-level percentages and supporting comments.

Sharon Morris, reporting survey results, said, "We've received 1,457 responses," and summarized key findings: 74% favored electing commissioners by district (rather than countywide), 83% said the charter should create an ethics board or commission, and 30% supported adding a charter-mandated water steward position (69% opposed). Morris also said most responses came through an online SurveyMonkey questionnaire, with five paper responses, and acknowledged SurveyMonkey27s limits: the tool does not fully prevent multiple submissions by the same person using different emails.

Commissioners discussed how to use the data. The water subcommittee reported it had been developing a draft amendment to create a water-resources specialist or "water steward" role but said it might instead present a committee recommendation rather than a charter amendment. Commissioners debated which path to prefer, whether to await the subcommittee27s complete draft at the next meeting, and how quickly to act given ballot deadlines.

A motion to direct the water committee to pursue an advisory recommendation (rather than finish a charter amendment for immediate placement on the ballot) passed. Commissioners said an advisory recommendation would give the Board of County Commissioners a researched policy option without committing the CRC to a charter change. Several commissioners stressed that the survey is only one input and not binding; one commissioner noted the county has about 59,000 registered voters and that the survey response represented roughly a 2.5% sample of registered voters.

The ethics subcommittee reported ongoing work on an ethics board proposal. Commissioners discussed constitutional limits on penalties and recalls and noted some jurisdictions rely on citizen-driven recall processes while ethics panels can make nonbinding findings. Several commissioners said they would like further committee research and possible presentations from other counties with standing ethics commissions.

Commissioners set follow-up steps: the water committee will present its completed draft at the next meeting, outreach staff retained the survey data and will provide copies to commissioners on request, and any commissioner may bring forward an amendment or referral based on the survey and committee work.