Cowlitz County officials consider replacing dangerous-animal board with hearing examiner

Cowlitz County commissioners and staff discussed replacing a proposed volunteer dangerous-animal board with an appointed hearing examiner, citing separation between policing and adjudication and the practical burden on volunteer members.

County legal staff and county officials said a hearing examiner would provide an impartial, quasi-judicial decision-maker and avoid the impression that the sheriff—s office is deciding both enforcement and disposition. The discussion came during a review of options for administering hearings about dangerous or potentially dangerous animals.

The county—s staff member who outlined the options said the hearing examiner model removes the decision from the policing arm of government and makes a neutral adjudicator available "because, you know, money speaks" and examiners are regularly available. The staff member added that volunteer boards can be inconvenient for members called upon unpredictably and that reliance on volunteers could reduce participation.

Commissioner K. (identified in the transcript only as K.) and Commissioner Grayson both signaled interest in exploring the hearing-examiner option. Jordan Spencer, identified in the transcript as chief administrative officer, confirmed the county already retains a hearing examiner by RFQ and that the county could ask whether that person is willing to take on animal hearings. Staff said the current contract hearing-examiner retainer may cover small case volumes but that the board should ask the examiner about availability and any additional cost if assigned animal cases.

Staff offered these next steps: prepare a written summary of the proposed process for the board to give to the retained hearing examiner, confirm willingness and cost with the examiner, and identify whether a small ordinance change is required. The staff member said the county may need to tweak the existing ordinance (referred to in discussion as section 6.13) to clarify hearing-examiner authority.

No formal vote or adoption occurred at the meeting. Commissioners asked staff to draft the proposal and return with details for potential adoption.

The county also discussed alternatives such as referring cases to district court; staff said district court historically has shown little interest in routinely taking these matters. Staff noted that, based on past case volumes, the county would likely use an examiner three or four times a year.

The board did not adopt any ordinance or contract change at the meeting; staff will return with a written memorandum and follow up with the retained hearing examiner about willingness and cost.