Clean Water Services presents draft rules of procedure; board debates meeting cadence, notice and conduct rules

Clean Water Services staff presented a first draft of rules of procedure intended to separate Clean Water Services (CWS) meeting rules from Washington County practice, proposing standalone CWS board meetings and several technical and procedural changes.

The draft files, described by Elizabeth Eddords as "version 1," would move CWS away from the county's integrated meeting model and set a new regular cadence and notice practices, while also adding a new conduct section and clarifying executive session rules.

Why it matters: The proposed changes affect when the public can attend and comment, how routine items are processed, and which office is responsible for posting and maintaining meeting records. Board members stressed the need for clear notice, consistent scheduling for the public, and explicit language on attendance and emergency authority.

Clean Water Services presented the draft rules as an initial proposal. "Please consider these version 1," said Elizabeth Eddords, chief of staff for Clean Water Services, introducing redline and clean copies posted online. Staff emphasized that many edits were technical—changing references from "county commissioner" to "board director," removing county‑charter‑specific language and striking inapplicable quasi‑judicial sections—but noted several areas likely to generate more discussion.

Meeting cadence and clerk role CWS staff proposed two regular CWS business meetings per month, identifying the second and fourth weeks as the potential cadence and suggesting 9 a.m. starts on those days to create a consistent schedule for the public. Staff noted that the county's fourth‑week meeting historically occurs in the evening; the CWS proposal would instead hold the fourth meeting in the morning unless the board decided to retain an evening option.

Directors and county officials raised practical concerns about the length of combined days (county work sessions can run into the afternoon), travel burdens for members who commute, and clerk coverage when meetings occur on CWS property. Clerk Moss and staff explained an existing memorandum of understanding (MOU) governs how clerk services are provided when meetings are held at CWS facilities, and that MOU would be updated if arrangements change.

Notice and posting The draft shortens a county charter 20‑day change‑of‑schedule requirement to the state minimum practice the staff proposed (72 hours) and shifts emphasis to online posting. Staff said meeting notices and agendas will be posted on the CWS website; board members asked staff to add explicit language naming where online notices are posted to reduce confusion for people without web access.

Public comment and consent agenda The draft retains a public comment period but proposes changes to the second (end‑of‑meeting) comment block that traditionally allowed five minutes per speaker. Board members debated options including a single general comment period, slightly longer initial comment times if the second period is removed, or keeping two periods with reduced time limits. One board member suggested increasing initial comment time if the second period is eliminated; another suggested keeping a short time and encouraging written testimony for longer remarks. No change was adopted at the meeting; staff will research practices in other special districts and return with options.

Executive sessions, attorney‑client privilege and attendance The draft reiterates that attorney‑client privilege belongs to the district (or county) and described language modeled on the county that requires a unanimous board vote to waive the privilege. That unanimity requirement drew questions about how it differs from ordinary board voting. The board also discussed attendance expectations and proposed language that "all members are expected to attend unless excused by the presiding officer for specific purposes, such as vacation, illness and family leave per ORS." Staff said attendance will continue to be recorded in the minutes.

Ordinances and statutory limits Directors asked whether ordinances could be read by title only as a standard practice. Staff explained that state law and the county charter constrain how ordinances for a county service district are adopted, and that any ability to read by title only depends on statutory and charter requirements. Staff said they would add text clarifying that the process follows applicable ORS provisions and the county charter where required.

Emergencies and authority Board members asked whether the district should retain specific emergency declaration authority for infrastructure incidents affecting treatment plants or pipelines. Staff said CWS cannot declare the same kind of "voter‑approved charter" emergency the county can, and they will consult emergency management and county counsel to draft clearer guidance on emergency purchasing and operational authority tied to preparedness plans.

Conduct and enforcement The draft adds a new conduct section modeled on other jurisdictions; board members asked staff to broaden references from "senior leadership" to "staff" so the standard applies to all staff interacting with the board and public, and to tighten language so procedural time limits are not circumvented by an overly broad right "to be heard." Board members requested clearer accountability language and said staff should return with refined wording.

Next steps Staff described the materials as an initial draft and said they will produce a revised version for further review; the board directed staff to return with a version 2 that clarifies posting locations, public comment options, attendance/excusal language, and emergency authorities. No motions or formal votes were taken on the rules during the session.

Ending: Staff said they will compare notes and bring a revision back for board consideration no later than the October work session cycle.