Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Training And Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Okanogan County Planning Commission to pursue training on Planning Enabling Act, public participation and meeting procedure
Summary
Commission members discussed scheduling daytime or remote training covering the Planning Enabling Act (RCW 36.70), differences with the Growth Management Act, public-participation best practices and Robert's Rules. Staff was asked to research options and circulate annotated materials.
The Okanogan County Planning Commission discussed scheduling formal training on the Planning Enabling Act, meeting procedure and public-participation practices and asked staff to research options and return with proposals and cost estimates.
Commission members and staff said the training should focus on material relevant to a partial/planning county, emphasize the difference between the Planning Enabling Act and the Growth Management Act, and include practical guidance on public comment and meeting procedure. A commission member summarized the next step: “So what I'm taking away from this is, Pete, you're gonna do some research to see what you can come up with,” and asked staff to pursue options that would allow the commissioners and county commissioners to attend, either in person or by videoconference.
Why it matters: commissioners said consistent, shared knowledge would help the commission coordinate better with county commissioners and outside agencies, reduce confusion at public hearings and ensure meetings follow the legal framework that applies to partial/planning counties.
At the meeting staff reported an email from a contact named Sheila proposing a Department of Commerce session aimed at the public; staff said that course would not be well tailored to the commission’s needs. Instead, staff recommended two possible tracks: (1) a short course from the Department of Commerce focused on partial-planning counties and the Planning Enabling Act (RCW 36.70), and (2) a procedural session on Robert's Rules and public-participation practices (staff mentioned the private training provider Jurassic Parliament as one vendor identified in initial research). Commissioners voiced concern about cost and attendance and discussed whether the training should be held as a daytime session brought to county facilities, a longer in-person session, or made available remotely via Zoom so members could participate without travel.
Several commissioners said prerecorded material on YouTube or other platforms exists but may not be tailored to partial-planning counties; staff was asked to prioritize a training that is specific to the county’s statutory status. A commission member emphasized that any in-person, daytime training should have a strong commitment from the full commission before incurring significant expense.
No formal motion to commit funds was made at the meeting. Staff was asked to gather options, costs and a proposed schedule and to circulate materials to commissioners for review. A staff member said she would share contact information and follow up with the commission by email and hard copy of materials.
The commission did not set a firm date for training; members said midsummer or times outside peak field season would be preferable if in-person instruction is arranged. The commission also discussed allowing county commissioners to attend portions of any training so both bodies would have common terminology and understanding for future joint work.
