Commentary - August 2006

Recorders, Clerks and Administrators

Should Politics Trump Ability?

by Lyle E. Brennan

Clark County Recorder Frances Deane has been in court recently, accused of accepting bribes from businessmen who wanted copies of public documents. Whether she is judged innocent or guilty, the situation brings up a question that has perplexed both government officials and ordinary citizens for years: why are county recorders and county clerks in Nevada elected instead of appointed?

“We tend to elect policymakers and appoint administrators,” said Clark County Manager Thom Reilly. “We elect county commissioners and city councilmen to make policy, but why do we elect a clerk, recorder or public administrator? These are administrative positions. It begs the question, ‘Why don’t we elect the parks and recreation director or the public works director?’ We don’t, because those jobs require experts in a particular field.”

In rural counties, processing documents doesn’t require as much expertise as in larger counties, where the sheer volume of paperwork can be overwhelming. For example, in Clark County, more than 1.1 million documents, including more than 121,000 marriage licenses, were recorded in 2005. Rather than getting an expert in information technology, office management or public records, the election process ensures only that the person handling our vital documents is attractive, a good public speaker and has a political war chest.

Another argument for an appointed recorder is that civil servants are not only required to have the proper background and to pass qualifying tests, but they can be given performance reviews by their supervisors and quickly replaced if they are not doing a good job.

The positions of county assessor and treasurer, because they involve handling large amounts of money and have the potential to affect important county decisions, may be better left as elected offices to ensure they are independent of pressure from other government officials. However, there’s little reason to elect the recorder or the county clerk.

Efforts to make these positions appointed may face some opposition. As Reilly points out, “Once you establish a position as elected, it’s very difficult to change it to an appointed position, because voters feel something is being taken away. They don’t want to let go of their right to vote for an officeholder, even if they don’t know what the office does.” It will be important to make sure legislators are informed of the benefits of this change so they can be comfortable in supporting it.

Another aspect of this debate is a motion to combine the offices of county clerk and county recorder. The offices of clerk and recorder are combined in most western states, including California and Arizona. In Nevada, however, two different offices mean another layer of bureaucracy and a lot of duplication of services. For example, paperwork for marriage licenses has to be processed through both offices.

In 2003, Clark County sponsored a measure in the Legislature to combine the offices of recorder and county clerk in the interest of efficiency and cost savings. At that time, Washoe County chose not to take a stand either for or against the bill. The measure was defeated, in part because rural counties did not support it. If a new bill were proposed that applied only to larger counties (perhaps a population of 250,000 or more) it might get better support. In fact, one of the candidates in this year’s race for Clark County Recorder is proposing just such a bill. So far, no one has officially sponsored a bill to make the positions appointed instead of elected, but there is still time before the Legislature convenes.

At press time, Clark County was still putting together its legislative package. John Slaughter, management services director for Washoe County, said Washoe is not planning to propose a bill to combine the offices or to make them appointed. He said Washoe County commissioners would reserve judgment on any such bill until they had a chance to see it.

Maybe it’s time to take a logical, unemotional look at what would be best for Nevada’s large counties. When the Legislature convenes in February, it would make sense to resurrect the idea of combining the recorder’s office and the county clerk’s office in Nevada’s largest counties, and to make the combined position an appointed one. This would save taxpayers money by streamlining operations and ensure that the best qualified people are managing our documents.

Lyle E. Brennan Publisher
COMMENTS? email: lyle@nbj.com