Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislative Affairs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
IPRTF steering committee advances proposal for legislative work group; members urge coordination with county lobbyists
Summary
Steering committee members reviewed a draft proposal for a legislative work group to track and coordinate justice-related bills, discussed timing for the 2026 session, and urged alignment with existing lobbyists and county priorities; staff flagged potential Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) language issues.
Steering committee members discussed a proposed legislative work group designed to track justice-related legislation and produce recommendations for county council and the executive's office. The proposal, drafted by Peter and Brian, was described as a template that could be used in this session and future sessions.
Peter (IPRTF co-chair) and Brian (co-chair, Behavioral Health Committee) said they drafted the proposal based on lessons learned from the BCC work group and urged early engagement in future sessions. "This would be coming before the IPRTF, October meeting for adoption, I would hope," Peter said.
Members urged coordination with existing legislative tracking and lobby efforts. Dan (steering committee member) asked whether the county's lobbyists could be leaned on for support and requested clear guardrails on the IPRTF's role versus the county's official advocacy. "I think we could ask about what is the could we talk directly to the lobbyist, or could we have some sort of connection to the county's lobbyist?" Dan asked.
Several members noted overlapping existing legislative efforts by associations and agencies and recommended tapping those networks rather than duplicating effort. Raylene described the Washington Association of County Officials' coordination of county priorities and other associations' legislative actions.
Tank raised a specific policy item members wanted the work group to consider: a local public-safety funding measure referenced in the meeting transcript as "HP 2015." Tank said municipalities adopting the public-safety fund could bring substantial new revenue: "for Whatcom County potentially bringing in $7,000,000 a year," he said, and suggested the IPRTF discuss the program and its implications.
Jill (staff member) advised revising the draft to ensure recommendations from the work group come to the IPRTF for public review before being forwarded to council or executive, noting the current language could "trigger some OPMA issues." Jill said she would suggest wording changes by email.
Next steps: Dan and other volunteers will review the draft before the full IPRTF meeting; staff will tweak the language to avoid OPMA conflicts and clarify whether the work group will produce recommendations to the IPRTF for public consideration rather than bypassing it. Jill said the county council committee-of-the-whole has a scheduled discussion on the public-safety fund on Tuesday at 1 p.m., and members were invited to attend.
