Clallam County committee advances charter amendment requiring annual town halls, 30-day public notice

Clallam County Charter Review Committee members on Monday agreed to send a revised charter amendment to the next step that would require each county commissioner to hold at least one town-hall meeting in their commissioner district each year, and require all members of the Board of County Commissioners to hold at least one town-hall meeting in each commissioner district annually.

The committee also agreed to require public notice of those meetings at least 30 days before the event and removed language that would have tied a specific budget allocation or other monetary incentive to town-hall outcomes. The committee did not adopt mandatory language about hybrid platforms and struck proposed language calling for simultaneous meetings in all districts.

Why it matters: The change would formalize recurring outreach by commissioners and the committee framed the amendment as a tool to increase public participation and transparency. Members debated frequency, scheduling outside of normal working hours, how to avoid inadvertently privileging one community, and how the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) could apply if all three commissioners attend the same meeting.

What the committee agreed to - Amendment text the committee read into the record states: “Each member of the board of county commissioners shall conduct at least one town-hall meeting in their commissioner district each year. All members of the board of county commissioners shall conduct at least one town-hall meeting in each commissioner district each year.” The committee added a sentence requiring notice: “Notice of such meetings must be posted at least 30 days in advance of the meeting.”

- The committee removed proposed provisions that would (a) make the meetings occur simultaneously across districts and (b) create a budget item or automatic funding tied to town-hall decisions. Committee members reported debating, then deleting, language that would have specified shorter notice windows or placed additional logistical mandates (for example, exact posting locations). The committee kept the posting requirement intentionally simple.

- The group discussed—but chose not to adopt—explicit charter language about hybrid/online attendance. Members said hybrid or livestream options are operational matters better handled in administrative policy rather than the charter.

Key discussion points and public comments - Public commenter Ed Bowen said he supported the idea but asked that the draft be posted publicly before the full Board sees it. “I really wanna see this, formatted document, and I’d like time before the meeting where this is brought forward,” Bowen said during public comment, noting limited broadband in parts of the county and asking that the draft be clear and accessible to the public.

- John Worthington, a public commenter, praised the town-hall concept but urged more structure. “I was not totally disappointed in yesterday’s town hall, but I still feel like there has to be some structure to the town hall,” Worthington said, recommending clearer time limits and a moderator to keep discussion focused.

- Committee members debated frequency and format. One compromise the group discussed and incorporated into the draft was that each commissioner would host at least one district-only town-hall annually and that all commissioners would appear together for at least one district meeting annually. Committee members noted that arrangement would result in at least six town-hall meetings countywide per year (three single-commissioner sessions and three full-board sessions), while allowing flexibility on scheduling and locations.

- Members raised Open Public Meetings Act concerns about having all three commissioners at a meeting and whether discussion among commissioners could constitute action. The committee concluded that compliance with OPMA would be required when commissioners attend and that the meetings are intended as public input sessions, not decision-making events.

Next steps and outcome - The committee indicated consensus to transmit the edited draft as “Step 1” to the full Board/next stage of review. The transcript records committee agreement and direction to format the draft for the full packet; no roll-call vote was recorded in the transcript.

- Committee staff and members said the draft will be formatted and included in the county packet ahead of the Board’s meeting; public commenters were advised to check the meeting packet the Thursday before the Board meeting for the posted draft.

Ending note: Committee members emphasized implementation details—notice, meeting locations outside the county’s primary population centers, and moderation to keep Q&A focused—would be finalized administratively rather than embedded in the charter.