The county is facing a big budget shortfall. What does that actually have to do with the Clerk's office?

The Clerk's office doesn't control the county's general fund. We don't set the budget for roads or parks or social services. So anyone who tells you electing a new clerk will fix a projected $9.8 million countywide budget shortfall is overpromising. That's not what this race is.

What I can tell you is this: every office in county government is going to be asked to do more with less over the next several years. The 2026 budget forecast makes that clear. That pressure is coming whether anyone is ready for it or not.

What I bring to that conversation is something the current office hasn't had. I've spent my career inside organizations that had to justify every dollar before they spent it. Both to a board and investors that met quarterly and to clients who would fire us the next day if the numbers didn't make sense. That kind of accountability instinct doesn't turn off. When I look at an office budget, my first question isn't "how do we protect what we have." It's "what is this actually producing and where can we do more with less."

The Clerk's office has an annual operating budget. It has staffing decisions, technology decisions, process decisions. None of those have been examined by someone with a private sector lens in a very long time. A full operational audit -- presented publicly, in plain language -- is one of my day-one commitments. Not because I assume waste. Because I think our residents deserve to know what they're funding and what it's producing. With huge investments in a new courthouse and the support facilities to go along with it, our county must have every department be employing the leanest possible budget, with alternatives, and the confidence that it can deliver against it.