Clallam County prosecutor’s office briefs heritage board on grant rules, conflicts and eligibility

Jay Reno, civil deputy for the Clallam County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, advised the Clallam County Heritage Advisory Board on eligibility, bylaws and conflict-of-interest practices during a detailed question-and-answer session at a board meeting. Reno said the board’s current bylaws impose no limit on the number of grants a single organization may receive and described the process for amending those bylaws.

The board, which advises the Clallam County Board of Commissioners, asked Reno how to change the bylaws and whether any restrictions exist on repeat awards. Reno said changes start with a quorum and a majority vote of the Heritage Advisory Board, followed by legal review from the prosecutor’s office and final approval by the county commissioners. "Meeting of the board where a quorum meets, a majority vote, recommendation of changes to the bylaws," he said.

Why it matters: the board uses the county Heritage Fund to recommend grants for preservation projects across Clallam County. Clarifying who may apply and how the board should manage conflicts helps prevent procedural challenges that could delay funding for local preservation projects.

Board members pressed Reno for specifics about eligibility and for guidance on requests they have received. Judy Rando Stipe, chair of the Heritage Advisory Board, described a long-running project to preserve a historic train engine and asked why previous applications had been turned down; she also sought help in making future applications more competitive. Reno said eligibility is determined first by the applicant type and property ownership: applicants must be a tax-exempt nonprofit organized in Washington, a local/state/federal government entity, a federally recognized tribe, or an individual/entity that owns Clallam County property listed on a local, state or national historic registry.

Reno reviewed types of eligible projects and said restoration of an existing, "declared" historic object or work is eligible, while creation of new artworks generally is not. "I would put visual arts such as painting, sculpture, films... I would say they are ineligible projects," he said, adding that restoration of previously declared items would be allowable. He suggested the board could request further research on what counts as "declared" for the registry process.

On conflicts of interest, Reno told the board that, because meetings are public, it would be inappropriate to require a member to leave the room when their project is discussed. He recommended abstaining from voting on projects in which a member has a personal interest, saying abstention reduces the appearance of impropriety. "It would be better if somebody else did it, of course. A non board member," he said when asked if board members should present applications for projects they are involved with.

Reno also discussed term limits and said the current bylaws contain no limit on how many times an individual may serve as chair. "There is nothing currently in the bylaws," he said, while offering term limits as a personal recommendation, not a legal requirement.

The board asked whether the Heritage Advisory Board’s recommendation is final; Reno reiterated that the board only makes recommendations and that the county commissioners hold final authority on dispersing money. "You're making a recommendation... at the end of the day, the county commissioners are the ones... they make the decision of where the money goes," he said.

Following the session, Reno offered to meet with members individually to review specific past applications and explain eligibility decisions. Judy Rando Stipe said she would provide documentation to help staff and legal counsel review the train restoration submissions.

Next steps: Board members said they want Reno to return with more detailed guidance on registry declaration criteria and asked staff to arrange follow-up appointments for specific applications.