Clark County Fiscal Court on an April meeting approved payment of bills tied to temporary staffing arrangements the county used after a series of weather and flooding emergencies, but several magistrates said the process should have included clearer documentation and quicker follow-up to the court.

The invoices at issue stem from short-term hires and a contract through a temporary-staffing vendor after back-to-back emergencies — an initial ice event, a snow event and two flood incidents. Some magistrates said the judge’s emergency declaration granted executive authority to act quickly in those circumstances, while others said the court should have been informed and contracts presented for approval sooner.

Judge defended the emergency use of executive authority, saying the declaration exists to "cut out the red tape" when events require immediate action. Several magistrates said they would accept the current bills for payment but insisted that future emergency hires and contracts be presented at the next possible meeting. One magistrate described the situation as potentially unlawful but said he would approve payment this time to avoid disrupting payroll and services.

What happened: After extended discussion, the court voted and approved payment of the contractor bills tied to the temporary staffing. Officials agreed to a practice change: if the executive exercises emergency powers, the court should be notified and the contract brought before the court at the next meeting for review.

Why it matters: The debate touched both fiscal accountability and the practical need for rapid response during disasters. Several members said the county should adopt clearer procedures so emergency contracting does not create legal or budgetary exposure.