The Clallam County Charter Review Commission voted on a motion to table and return a proposed ethics-review board amendment to committee after lengthy discussion about how members would be appointed, whether findings would carry enforceable penalties and how the measure should appear to voters.

Commissioner Cameron, who presented the rewritten amendment, moved to advance the language to the next steps of the charter process, saying, "I will move that we adopt the amendment as it's written in the email there. Step 2." Commissioners then debated whether the amendment’s short, summary wording left important implementation details unresolved.

Why it matters: commissioners said the question is not whether to create oversight but how to do it without creating an unworkable, legally vulnerable body that could saddle the county with expensive litigation. Multiple commissioners urged more detail in the implementing resolution or send the draft back to committee to avoid a confusing ballot measure.

Members raised legal and practical questions: the amendment as written would have three citizen appointees selected by city mayors in each district, prompting concerns that the county charter cannot assign duties to non-county actors and that appointing city officials could expose cities to liability. Commissioner Hodgson said he was "a little nervous about the county's operations having people appointed by the city," and others noted the ambiguity around term lengths, vacancy procedures and whether the review board’s findings would produce enforceable consequences.

Commissioners discussed enforcement and legal costs at length. One commissioner summarized the committee’s design choice by noting that the proposal limited remedies to publication of findings: "The consequences are minimal in that the only thing it is is that it becomes public. That's it," a committee member said during debate. Several commissioners said that approach was intended to reduce litigation risk but may not fully avoid legal challenges.

The group also debated whether the amendment’s text should use "shall" or "is hereby" when establishing the board. Some commissioners argued "is hereby established" would prematurely create a body without members or procedures; others said it clarified intent. Commissioners suggested including a sunset or trial period—"try it for 5 years"—so voters could approve a limited pilot rather than an indefinite change.

Outcome: After discussion the commission voted on a motion to table the amendment and send it back to committee for further drafting. The motion to table passed on a recorded voice vote with several commissioners saying "aye." The chair and commission will receive the revised language and consider it again in committee before any step to put it before voters.

Next steps: The amendment will be returned to the committee for drafting of implementation details (terms, vacancy rules, enforcement language and any sunset clause) and to consult with legal counsel about possible liability for city-appointed members. The committee will present a revised draft to the full commission at a future meeting.