Subcommittee orders new packet, stricter intake fields and clearer legal-review steps for Clark County charter amendments

At an April meeting of the work‑plan subcommittee of the Clark County Charter Review Commission, members voted to overhaul how charter amendment proposals are submitted and reviewed, aiming to give the county prosecutor a clearer, narrower set of materials for legal review while preserving attorney‑client privilege.

The subcommittee agreed to revise the existing detailed policy form so it requires committees to supply the charter sections affected and the proposed redlined language, plus a checklist identifying consulted departments, applicable RCWs and county codes, and any budget impacts. "If they can point to what they're referring to," Katie, the prosecuting attorney assigned to the commission, said, "that indicates to me that they're a lot further along in the process of studying this." Katie cautioned that her initial look would be a preliminary review and not final sign‑off: "The review is not complete. That would be a preliminary," she said.

Why it matters: The changes are intended to reduce back‑and‑forth and to make Katie's time more efficient so legal concerns are flagged early. The subcommittee also decided to create a separate "resolution packet" — a final work product assembled by a study committee that will include recitals, the proposed ballot language, the complete redlined charter text, and the explanatory statement — which the drafting committee and scrivener will use to prepare the official draft for the auditor.

Members discussed format and timing. Michelle Akiti (committee member) and others urged that examples and formatting templates be shared so committees know where to put strike‑throughs, underlining, recitals and the explanatory language. The group also discussed how to avoid waiving attorney‑client privilege: Katie explained that her written, privileged legal opinions (work product) should not be published verbatim because doing so could allow opposing parties to obtain them in litigation. As Katie summarized, publishing the raw email could "waive your attorney‑client privilege" and expose those communications to discovery.

The subcommittee set near‑term deadlines and triage expectations. Committees that already had second readings were given a one‑week adjustment; Katie requested that items intended for the next meeting be submitted by noon on Monday, April 20, so she could perform an initial review. The group agreed Katie will triage reviews "first come, first serve" and that the intake form revisions should reduce how preliminary (versus final) her early reviews are.

Next steps and responsibilities include: Kathy (to draft the revised intake form and packet template), Dorothy (to update the study‑committee protocol to require the resolution packet), Michelle (to circulate example documents she received), and Peter (to present the subcommittee report at the commission meeting). The subcommittee also agreed that the scrivener and drafting committee should not change policy — only perform word‑smithing — and that Katie's final legal review should occur after drafting and before materials go to the county auditor.

The meeting produced no formal votes on amendments; it produced process changes intended to streamline submissions, protect privileged legal work, and clarify which documents constitute a committee's final product to be sent for drafting.

The subcommittee is scheduled to report these changes to the full commission at its next meeting; committees were instructed to update their materials per the new guidance and to coordinate with Katie if a single, outstanding legal issue requires targeted follow‑up.