Letter: Propositions 12 and 13 are serious solutions for public safety

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and may not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com

Author’s Note: The views expressed in this letter are those of the author as Chair of Yes on Propositions 12 & 13, and do not reflect the positions of the Clark County Charter Review Commission, on which she serves.

Ann Donnelly, Charter Review Commission

Dick Rylander’s Oct. 6 letter, addressing Propositions 12 and 13 on our current ballots, argues that “a serious jail problem deserves a serious solution.” Former County Councilor Rylander identifies critical issues as the needed jail capacity extrapolated for future years, and thus the size of the proposed jail expansion funded under Proposition 12’s 31-year bond; and for Proposition 13’s levy, the needed public safety personnel in various categories.

Mr. Rylander acknowledges that public safety matters, but asks whether Clark County has demonstrated that the two measures constitute the most prudent response.

The questions raised by Mr. Rylander are sound. They are also the very questions analyzed and evaluated in depth over the last two years by the jail study project, led by Jail Director David Shook, and the Sheriff’s study team for needed staffing led by Sheriff Horch.

As a Jail Stakeholder (referring to a group of highly involved citizens observing the project), I watched the analysis teams report repeatedly to the council and the public on progress month by month on the good questions Mr. Rylander raises.

I also privately sought an independent opinion from a nationally respected jail expert as to the soundness of the analysis and its conclusions, and of the reputation and qualifications of the county’s consulting jail architect. I was satisfied on all counts.

Finally, as to the solutions the county selected, the county staff and council members assessed various alternatives and their comparative costs and benefits, prior to selecting those embodied in the two propositions placed on the ballot. They took into account taxpayer’s burdened finances these days in selecting the Partial, not Full plan, which is the one reflected in Propositions 12 and 13.

I am confident that Mr. Rylander’s recommended “serious solution” has indeed been provided to the voters and taxpayers of the county.

Ann Donnelly
Vancouver