Port Orchard council debates policy on council endorsements, directs staff to prepare repeal ordinance

Port Orchard City Council members debated whether the council should take formal positions on local levies, bonds and ballot measures during the Jan. 21 study session. The discussion ran through a range of policy, legal and political concerns and ended with council direction that staff prepare an ordinance to repeal the city’s current restriction on council endorsement — subject to the public-notice and hearing process required by law.

Why it matters: the existing ordinance limits the council’s ability to use city facilities or issue official statements supporting or opposing ballot measures; repealing it would allow the council, as a body, to take positions after the formal public hearing process. City staff told the council that any repeal and subsequent position statement would need legal and public-notice steps, and that in many circumstances the council’s formal statement must follow a public hearing so both sides may be heard.

What happened: council members expressed a range of views. Some members argued the council should be a community leader and take positions where measures “benefit the city.” Others preferred leaving advocacy to individual council members and feared the council taking institutional stands could be seen as directing voters. Several members proposed requiring unanimity or a supermajority for a council-level endorsement; the city attorney said the council ordinarily acts by majority and warned that automatically imposing a minority veto raises legal questions.

The council reached operational agreement on the next step: staff were asked to prepare an ordinance to repeal the existing ordinance that restricts council endorsements and to bring the matter back for a noticed public hearing and formal council consideration. Staff and the clerk reminded the council that proper legal notice (including a newspaper/legal notice timeline) is required and that implementation would not be immediate — the earliest formal action would depend on the public-notice schedule.

Direct quotations recorded in the discussion included one council member’s statement about the council’s role: “I strongly feel that it's, when something is to the benefit of the city, that we should listen to both sides and then come out as a council, supporting or choose not to support it.” That same councilmember said elected officials were chosen “for a reason” and that the council should provide leadership in some cases. Other council members responded that individual members retain the right to speak personally and that issuing a citywide endorsement could be mistaken for telling residents how to vote.

Next steps: staff will draft an ordinance to repeal the current restriction, circulate it for legal review and schedule a properly noticed public hearing. Council members noted that the timing will be constrained by notice requirements and that the repeal would not produce an immediate opportunity to take a position on any ballot item already in the current notice window.