Clallam County subcommittee advances draft charter amendment to create ethics review board

A Clallam County Charter Review Commission subcommittee moved to refine and fast-track a draft charter amendment to create an ethics review board, after members debated conflicts of interest rules, staffing needs and potential legal costs.

The subcommittee discussed a single-sentence charter provision drafted in-session — "The county shall have an ethics review board" — and agreed to work this week to produce a step-1 draft for the full Charter Review Commission packet. Members scheduled a follow-up subcommittee meeting for Sept. 2 at 1:30 p.m. to finalize language for the packet that must be prepared by the county clerk’s office later that week.

The meeting centered on how an ethics board would operate, who would qualify to serve, and what due process and legal representation the county would have to provide if a complaint is filed. Commissioner Jeff Tozer advocated narrowing the subcommittee’s immediate focus to creating a board and agreed to abandon a separate proposal that would bar county elected officials from serving on nonprofit boards in order to secure broader support for the ethics-board charter amendment. "I am willing to abandon this NGO conflict of interest thing to get something about a board of ethics over the board," Tozer said.

Dee, who reported on a call with Clark County’s chief civil deputy, told the subcommittee that Clark County’s experience highlights limits and costs. "They got about 25 applications" when Clark advertised for applicants, Dee said, but Clark struggled to staff the panel with experienced project managers and found most implementation work fell to clerk and county-manager office staff. Clark County also relied on outside attorneys and investigators when complaints arose, Dee said, driving most implementation costs.

Rod, who led in-session drafting, proposed a concise opening line for the charter amendment: "The county shall have an ethics review board. The ethics review board will receive, investigate, and dispose of complaints of ethical violations against county elected officials in relationship to the county's code of ethics." Rod also advised the subcommittee to define who the board would cover and to spell out appointment and appeal procedures.

Legal questions remained open. Dee told members the Clark County chief civil deputy said Clark had no strictly enumerated qualifications for board members and favored applicants with government or ethics experience. County counsel in Clallam cautioned that Clallam County code currently requires the county to provide legal representation for officials in many instances, and that early, routine determinations about whether an alleged act was within an official’s capacity could obligate the county to provide counsel to the accused. The attorney also said initial research on due process had expanded into a larger project touching on federal First Amendment and property-rights issues and that a more detailed written analysis would follow.

Subcommittee members repeatedly raised scheduling and practicality concerns: volunteer terms, PDC (Public Disclosure Commission) filing rules for advisory positions, difficulty filling voluntary seats in rural areas and the potential for multi-week or multi-month delays if board members or parties were unavailable. Dee said one Clark County matter the subcommittee discussed had been pending nearly two years because of scheduling conflicts, representation by a union attorney for the accused and the committee’s limited meeting cadence.

The subcommittee agreed to consolidate homework edits into a single draft, circulate it to members, and deliver final materials to staff so Lonnie could include the item in the Commission packet. Members asked Dee for a short, written memo summarizing Clark County’s lessons and requested that county counsel produce a written memo on due process and on how Clallam County Code section 3.34.02 (the county’s legal-representation provision, as cited in the meeting) would apply to ethics-board complaints.

The committee did not adopt binding language during the session. Instead, members directed staff and counsel to produce the written materials and scheduled a short follow-up meeting to complete a step-1 draft for presentation to the full Charter Review Commission.