Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Meetings Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents warn Clallam County against requiring registration for remote public comment, cite state open-meetings law
Summary
During the March 4 general public-comment period, residents urged the Board of Commissioners to preserve remote public participation and warned that requiring pre-registration could violate RCW 42.30.040. Speakers asked the board to broaden access, hold a town hall and direct IT fixes rather than limit remote attendance.
Residents and remote participants used the March 4 Clallam County commissioners meeting to press the board to preserve open remote public comment and to reject proposals that would require advance registration before members of the public speak.
Speakers pointed to state law, practical access issues and the effect of meeting times on attendance. One online participant cited the Open Public Meetings Act by statute number and argued that a registration requirement would create a two-tier system that effectively conditions participation on providing personal information.
Why it matters: public meeting access affects who can participate in local government decisions. Proposals made in a previous work session to limit remote participation by requiring advance registration or other preconditions prompted legal and civic concerns from residents and local advocates.
What residents said
"RCW 42 dot 30 dot 0 4 0 states, a member of the public shall not be required as a condition to attendance at a meeting of a governing body to register his or her name and other information, to complete a questionnaire, or otherwise fulfill any condition precedent to his or her attendance," said Carrie Joyce, a virtual attendee, quoting the statute and urging the board to avoid measures that would demand registration before remote participation. Joyce also warned that a registration requirement would create "a two tier participation level" and could chill public comment.
Other speakers echoed concerns about access and technology. Eric Fairman, who spoke in person, pressed county IT to fix the remote meeting platform and remove the ability of disruptive users to screen-share rather than requiring registration. Several speakers asked the board to consider scheduling and format changes — for example, moving meeting start times to improve in-person attendance and holding a town hall — to expand opportunities for residents to engage.
County response and context
During the meeting the county administrator referenced a recent work session on access to virtual meetings and said staff had discussed other jurisdictions’ approaches, including Sequim’s requirement to register 24 hours in advance for comment. The clerk and IT staff noted technical controls (for example, disabling screen-share) but the board did not adopt any new policy during the March 4 meeting.
Ending
No formal policy change was recorded at the March 4 meeting. The board heard legal and procedural objections to a possible registration requirement and requests for a town-hall format and more robust remote-access technology; county staff and commissioners signaled the topic remains under discussion following the earlier work session.
