Washington County advances working draft of 'access and opportunity' resolution; sends version for legal review

The Washington County Board of Commissioners reviewed and refined a working draft of a resolution and order on federal contracts and an “access and opportunity” framework during a July 15 work session, directing staff to produce a redlined version, circulate an updated packet and send a subsequent draft for county legal review ahead of consideration next week.

The discussion centered on staff outreach and survey results, draft language changes requested by ACRE (the county’s advisory group on racial equity and community engagement), and whether the resolution should include specific protected characteristics and an accountability mechanism. County Administrator Angie said staff would prepare a red-line and a version that shows comment authorship and asked consultants Jonelle Bell and Lucy Hammer to present the outreach findings. “I would suggest that Jonelle Bell and Lucy Hammer start the presentation,” Administrator Angie said.

Consultant Lucy Hammer summarized results from a July 7 employee listening session, an in‑progress employee survey (55 initial responses) and an early community-based organization survey (15 respondents representing three CBOs). Hammer said staff heard persistent uncertainty among employees and CBO partners about what language is permissible and how federal executive orders affect contracts and grant eligibility. “Say what needs to be said. They don't want to see the language overly sanitized,” Hammer said, describing staff feedback that the draft should be direct rather than vague.

Why it matters: county staff and community partners reported that communication gaps amid a pause on signing federal grants and contracts have increased anxiety and operational uncertainty. Commissioners and staff said a clear county position and frequent, consistent messaging are needed so CBOs and residents are not left guessing whether services or contracts will change.

Key points from staff and CBO outreach

- Employee listening session: 39 participants; comments emphasized emotional labor, internal mistrust, and requests for more internal channels (FAQs, regular listening sessions) and faster public messaging. - Employee survey (preliminary, 55 responses): 45% reported negative impacts to operations or morale from federal executive orders; 47% said they see conflict between executive orders and state statutes or county policy; responses on the resolution were split, with roughly 40–50% supporting a civil‑rights‑centered resolution that maintains equity work. - CBO survey (preliminary, 15 respondents representing three organizations): 100% reported they had been notified of a federal funding change (delay or elimination); the majority said delays would have severe impacts on operations and expressed a need for timely, transparent communications.

Draft language and board debate

Consultants and ACRE proposed additions that would (a) change earlier wording from “concepts” to “principles,” (b) insert “fairness” alongside “equality” in whereas clauses, and (c) include examples of protected categories. The draft referenced federal civil‑rights statutes — the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 — and an example citation to the Oregon Revised Statutes chapter 659. Commissioners debated the inclusion of the word “identity” in definitions of access and opportunity; several said they preferred deferring that specific insertion to county counsel’s legal review.

Board direction and next steps

Board members agreed verbally to a versioning plan: treat the July 8 packet as version 1, label the July 15 working draft version 2, produce a version 3 incorporating today’s comments to go to legal review, and aim for a version 4 in the published packet for the board meeting next Tuesday. Staff and consultants will produce a redlined document showing comment authorship. The board also asked that any recommended language be reviewed by county legal counsel before publication. There was no formal roll‑call vote recorded on the resolution during the work session.

ACRE representation and accountability request

Barry Dunn Smith, speaking as an ACRE representative, said ACRE members endorsed language that would make the resolution durable and asked for measures that would allow the community to see how the county implements any new framework. “We want to make sure there is some accountability because even though there is intent, there needs to be measures of accountability to build trust,” Barry Dunn Smith said.

What the draft would direct (as discussed)

- Direct the county administrator to implement an access and opportunity framework across county operations (the draft language proposed doing so; commissioners discussed whether the phrase should include a focus on the “most vulnerable and underserved”). - Engage in consistent outreach with community partners (the board asked that the text be written so it does not imply an unreasonable staff workload and to clarify the county‑level role in any collaborative response). - Ensure public dollars are spent in compliance with federal, state and local laws (the draft lists statutes as examples and notes the list is not exhaustive).

Clarifying details from the meeting

- Listening session date: July 7 (39 participants). - Employee survey: preliminary 55 responses; results still being collected; final tally expected at the end of the week. - CBO survey: preliminary results show 15 respondents representing three organizations; survey still open. - Timeline: staff will try to publish a packet update before the Thursday publication deadline; legal review is required before final publication for the Tuesday meeting.

Speakers (selected)

- Angie — County Administrator (identified in the meeting as “Administrator Angie”). - Lucy Hammer — consultant (Esposito); presented listening session and survey findings. - Jonelle Bell — consultant (presenter role assigned by Administrator Angie). - Barry Dunn Smith — ACRE representative (spoke on ACRE recommendations). - Chair Harrington — Washington County Board of Commissioners (presiding officer during the work session).

Authorities referenced in discussion

- Civil Rights Act of 1964 (referenced by consultants/ACRE as an example statute). - Age Discrimination Act of 1975. - Americans with Disabilities Act. - Rehabilitation Act of 1973. - Oregon Revised Statutes, chapter 659 (cited in draft language as an example of state civil‑rights law).

Ending: The board did not take a final vote on the draft. Commissioners agreed to send a version incorporating today’s comments to legal review and to aim to publish a revised packet for consideration at the next regular meeting. If legal review requires further changes and the packet cannot be finalized by the Thursday publication deadline, staff planned to publish the working draft available at the earliest possible publication cycle.