Resolution 11 - Executive Office Vacancy Appointment

This proposal introduces a Vacancy Section to the Charter in the event an elected county official position becomes vacant.

Why does the Charter Review Board want it?

This amendment puts the replacement process into the hands of the vacating official. The reason they want to force this change is so they can bypass the authority of the Council as now defined in the Charter. This effectively takes the appointment process away from our elected Council.

Why should you REJECT this resolution?

Should Clark County be run by an unelected official rather than by one appointed by the County Council? Should an unelected official have the sole right to name their replacement without oversight or approval? Should elected officials have the sole right to name their replacement without due process or requirement that an election be held within a reasonable period of time in the event of a vacancy?

By voting NO to this resolution, you are sending it back to the Charter Review Commission for reconsideration. You are telling the Commission that their interpretation of what’s right is flawed, and that you want a different solution. In the case of a County Councilor replacement being stuck in a 2-2 tie or in a 2-1 vote (when 3 are required) what happens? Nothing is spelled out and we’ll have another mess.

Immediate adoption of this resolution allows no time for challenges or examination into possible legal action. While the overall intent may have been a good faith attempt to come up with a replacement system, this proposal is fatally flawed.

Vote NO to send this proposal back for revision and improvement.

Check out the video below to learn more about the problems with this amendment.

REJECT