Charter review panel refers alleged OPMA and First Amendment concerns to bylaws committee after public complaint about social-media post

The Charter Review Commission on March 24 voted to refer allegations about social-media conduct and possible Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) and First Amendment implications to its bylaws committee after a public commenter described what she said was public retaliation.

In public comment, a resident identified in the transcript as Miss Johnston recounted an e-mail exchange she had with a commissioner following an earlier meeting and said the commissioner later published the exchange and portions of her campaign materials on a Substack newsletter called the Clallam County Watchdog. She told the commission the post had prompted demeaning reader comments and said she had not consented to publication of portions of her submission.

"When members of the public come to these meetings, they are allowed to offer public comment free of harassment and intimidation," the commenter said on the record, and asked the commission to adopt a rule barring commissioners from using social media or other channels to harass people who offer public comment.

Commissioners discussed whether the issue should be handled by bylaws and whether existing state rules (OPMA and First Amendment protections) already set enforceable boundaries. A motion to send the matter to the bylaws committee passed; on the record two commissioners were recorded as opposed (Commissioner Benedict and Commissioner Waldy). The bylaws committee members were identified on the record and will review whether the commission's bylaws should more explicitly address the use of county email, county resources, and public statements on social media.

Why it matters: Commenters said they feared a chilling effect on public participation if public commenters are singled out for reposting and online criticism. Commissioners who raised the matter said clarifying expectations for elected members' public communications is appropriate; others cautioned about potential conflicts with free-speech protections and the limits of what a charter or bylaws change can regulate.

Next steps: The commission asked the bylaws committee to consider language addressing the use of county resources and to report recommended edits back to the full commission. The committee will also consider whether any proposed language should be pursued through charter amendment or internal rules.