Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Public Meetings Act topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission votes to ask county prosecutor for detailed Open Public Meetings Act guidance on emails, notices and committee meetings
Summary
The commission approved a request that the county prosecutor provide detailed guidance on earlier advice about avoiding email chains, on what must appear in meeting notices (content and where posted), and whether committees should hold regular meetings to avoid special‑meeting notice pitfalls.
The Charter Review Commission voted to request detailed legal guidance from the county prosecutor on three Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) questions: the scope of the prosecutor’s earlier advice to avoid email chains, the specific content and posting requirements for meeting notices, and whether committees should schedule regular meetings to reduce the risk of special‑meeting notice violations.
Commissioner Ron Richards moved the request after commissioners and committee chairs reported uncertainty about how to communicate about committee agendas without triggering OPMA violations. “We need advice on what we can and cannot do in email communications,” Richards said when offering the motion. The motion asked the prosecutor to clarify (1) the application of OPMA to email communications among commissioners, (2) notice content and posting locations required for special and regular meetings, and (3) whether committees should have scheduled regular meetings so agendas may be more flexible.
Commissioner Paul Fleck and other committee chairs described practical challenges: committees must set agendas and invite staff and outside speakers but worry that circulating proposed agendas to a quorum by email could constitute an unlawful meeting. Commissioner Ron Pickett, chair of the water committee, said committees are working to assemble subject‑matter experts — such as PUD and county staff — but need legal clarity about scheduling and agenda setting.
The commission voted in favor of Richards’ motion; the chair instructed staff to forward earlier email correspondence and the committee discussion to the prosecutor so the attorney could prepare a written opinion for the commission’s next meeting. Commissioner Susan Fish said she had already forwarded relevant committee language and correspondence to the prosecutor.
Separately, commissioners considered additional legal requests during the meeting: a proposal to ask the prosecutor to classify the boards and committees on which commissioners serve as governmental or nongovernmental entities failed on a recorded vote; and a motion to ask the prosecutor about potential county roles regarding a local hospital consolidation was moved and seconded and subsequently included among legal requests to the prosecutor for follow up.
