Clark County Council pauses idea to make clerk an appointed post; refers review to Charter Review process

Councilors on Wednesday discussed a proposal to change the Clark County clerk from an elected to an appointed position but did not move to place the measure on the ballot. Superior Court’s presiding judge and multiple members of the public addressed the council during the item listed as “Clark County Clerk.”

Judge Michael Vanderwood (Presiding Judge, Clark County Superior Court) told the council the proposal under consideration would make the clerk an appointed position and that the change is in place in other Washington counties. He said the court supports the change to improve operational alignment between the clerk’s office and the courts, and argued a single administrative structure could reduce duplicated costs and improve document-management efficiency. “The clerk’s office may be under the direction of a separate elected official, or someone appointed by the local judges,” Vanderwood said during his presentation.

The item drew repeated public comment opposing the change. Peter Van Nortwick and other residents said moving the clerk to an appointed post would weaken accountability to voters. “The county clerk is an elected official reporting to the citizens of Clark County,” Van Nortwick told the council. Liz Klein and Rob Anderson also testified against converting the office, arguing it would reduce voter control.

Clark County Treasurer Alicia Topper, an elected official, said she was surprised the agenda item was posted so shortly before the meeting and urged the council to refer the issue to the Charter Review Commission so voters elect representatives to examine charter-level changes. “I ask you to not take action today on this item and to refer it to the County Charter Review Commission,” Topper said.

Several councilors said they preferred sending the question through the charter-review process rather than moving directly to a ballot measure. Councilors noted the timing of the county’s charter review election later this year and reluctance to decide the issue before that body is seated. Chair Marshall summarized that the council would not make a decision at the meeting and that the clerk would be invited to present during next week’s council time for additional public information.

The discussion did not produce a council motion to place a charter amendment on the ballot. Instead, councilors expressed a consensus that the Charter Review Commission is the appropriate forum for a structural change to the county charter.

The clerk’s office and Superior Court both provided technical details during the presentation, including discussion of document-management software used locally (OnBase) versus the state-supported Odyssey system and the costs and workflow implications of each. Vanderwood indicated that some cost differences stem from local licensing for OnBase and that unified administration could simplify access and reduce duplicative licensing paid by multiple court entities.

The council’s next step will be an informational appearance by the county clerk during the next council time session; councilors also signaled they want the charter-review process to evaluate the issue before any council action to place a measure on a ballot.