Small Town News

County commission may have broken law

---

An impromptu meeting of Mason County commissioners this past Wednesday, May 4, may have violated the state's Open Public Meetings Act.

The e-mail notice for the meeting to discuss "potential department restructuring" only went out 14 minutes beforehand and took several elected officials, including Commissioner Tim Sheldon, who was in Portland at the time, by surprise.

Commissioners Lynda Ring-Er-ickson and Jerry Lingle approved a measure during the board's regular meeting the day before that designates Wednesdays as an additional briefing day. Prior to that, briefings were only slated for Mondays and regular business meetings were slated for Tuesdays.

Ring-Erickson said late last week that she saw a memo from Facilities Manager Mike Rut-ter, at about 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday announcing that he was bumping up his retirement to June. Lingle said that he saw the memo at around the same time and agreed that a 3 p.m. meeting was in order.

"Given the short and surprising time line, Department Directors and electeds were invited to give us their initial ideas on what type of process we might develop," Ring-Erickson wrote in an e-mail this past Friday.

Ring-Erickson also noted that the meeting

was on the record and the recordings and notes are available for review.

"We got some good ideas," she added. "No decisions were made or even discussed. There were about ten people who attended."

Ring-Erickson's e-mail came, in part, as a response to criticisms from Brenda Hirschi, who made an unsuccesful bid for the commission earlier this fall while running against Lingle.

"Speaking as a Mason County citizen/taxpayer/voter, I question whether this meeting violated the Open Public Meetings Act. An e-mail notice sent primarily to county officials fourteen minutes prior to holding the meeting did not allow the public to be informed of the conduct of the people's business. If not a violation, this incident certainly didn't support the spirit of the law. Fourteen minutes come on!"

Attorney Chris Roslaniec, an open government expert with the Allied Law Group in Seattle and a co-author of "An Overview of Washington's Public Records Act," agreed.

"Fourteen minutes is obviously not adequate notice for a public meeting," Roslaniec said. "Regardless of calling this a briefing, or whatever else they want to call it, it's still subject to the Open Public Meetings Act. They can call an emergency meeting on short notice, but this doesn't qualify, or they can call a special meeting 24 hours in advance. They can do whatever they want, but they almost always need 24 hours. It's kind of an odd thing for them not to

do that. Just announcing we're having a briefing day is not adequate."

Roslaniec also said that there is no reason the commissioners couldn't have held a meeting on Thursday, May 6, as a special meeting with 24-hours notice.

"Mr. Rutter is leaving in June, it's not like he was leaving that afternoon," Roslaniec noted. "I can't imagine what Mr. Rutter was doing that day that would send the county into some sort of anarchy by waiting to see what they could do to replace this guy."

Another one of the people who couldn't make the meeting was Mason County Prosecutor Mike Dorcy.

"Fourteen minutes notice for a meeting or a briefing, I think, turned out to be insufficient for a lot of folks to find out what was going on or make it on time, including myself," he said.

But, Dorcy said that the meeting, which followed the board's decision the day before to designate Wednesdays as a standing briefing day, may not have violated the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) because the county is a "public agency" and not a "state agency."

"If a meeting is open to the public, it comes down to notice," Dorcy said. "If it's a special meeting, no it's not in compliance and violated the act. If it's a regular meeting, it might not have been a violation."

Dorcy also said that state agencies and cities have different rules and regulations tha counties when it comes to changing regular meeting times and producing agendas.

"It comes down to whether or not Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays are all regular meetings or not," he said. "For a state agency, a 20-day notice is required for regular meeting changes. We're a political subdivision of the state, and a public agency, so it could be different.

"There are still some questions and I'm still trying to get answers myself."

Roslaniec said that designating three days of every week for public meetings is really pushing the notice requirements beyond what was intended in the OPMA.

"You can't say we're in meetings all week as a way to give notice to the public because people can't be expected to sit around all day waiting for a meeting," Roslaniec said.

"You can't just say we're in meetings for three days on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. No one can be expected to monitor that."

Lastly, Roslaniec offered clarification about what "is a common misconception or misinterpretation that there needs to be final action" in order for a meeting to be open to the public.

"All you need to do is discuss county business and you're having a meeting," Roslaniec said.

"Any discussion, deliberation, debate, etc. amongst a quorum of the board is action and it doesn't have to be final action."



Copyright 2011 Shelton-Mason County Journal, Shelton, Washington. All Rights Reserved. This content, including derivations, may not be stored or distributed in any manner, disseminated, published, broadcast, rewritten or reproduced without express, written consent from SmallTownPapers, Inc.

© 2011 Shelton-Mason County Journal Shelton, Washington. All Rights Reserved. This content, including derivations, may not be stored or distributed in any manner, disseminated, published, broadcast, rewritten or reproduced without express, written consent from DAS.

More from Shelton-Mason County Journal