[Previous entry: "County Addresses Building Permit Backlog -Again"] [Next entry: "On Selecting a County Commissioner"]

04/20/2005: ""The people .. do not give public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know". RCW 42.30.010"

The BOCC met last week with the staff of the Building & Planning department at a mandatory staff meeting. Commissioners Miller and Ranker (Commissioner Lichter declined to attend) sat down with department members to discuss…Well, that's where the problem comes in. The public does not know what they discussed, who called the meeting, or why it was called.

The meeting was not on the agenda, was not advertised, and no minutes or recording of the meeting was made. And the two Commissioners who decided to attend the meeting constituted a quorum. According to the Commissioner's office the meeting was not a violation of the State Open Meetings Act, because no "Action" took place.

All well and fine, but under Washington law "Action" means more than taking a vote, or agreeing to do something. It also includes "the transaction of the official business of a public agency by a governing body including but not limited to receipt of public testimony, deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations, and final actions. By all accounts there was some very "hot" discussion that took place, directed from the staff to the BOCC.

According to Sharon Rosse Fowler (of Graham & Dunn law firm in Seattle)who did research on the Open Meeting Act for the Society Of Professional Journalists (which The Island Guardian is a member of), The Washington Supreme Court has ruled (Organization to Preserve Agr. Lands v. Adams County, 126 Wn.2d 869, 883 n. 2, 913 P.2d 793 (1996) That:

"if a quorum of a governing body meets informally, in person or by telephone, to discuss official business, the members are violating the Act, even if they do not take formal or final action. Such a violation can even occur at an informal gathering or cocktail party."

Under State law there are only two kinds of meetings, Regular and Special. The definition of a Special Meeting is any meeting other than "regular." So if the BOCC did not have a regular meeting, it must have been a special meeting, and (in either the case) the meeting "must be announced by written notice to all members of the governing body; also to members of the news media who have filed written requests for such notice, and the notice of a special meeting.. Must specify the time and place of the meeting and the business to be transacted."

A "meeting" generally includes any situation in which a majority of the council or other "governing body" (including certain kinds of committees) meets and discusses the business of that body.

Was any law broken? Harm done? Don't know, but that really is the whole point of the Open Meeting Act, to require that the government is open to all, at all times, so the citizens can know what is gong on.

It is all best summed up by State law and County regulation as follows:

The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

Well said; and the County Commissioners were wise to include it in our Comprehensive Plan as a guiding principle. Now they need to follow it.