Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Skagit County revises code wording on district judges and legal defense of employees
Summary
The Board of County Commissioners approved revisions to county code to align district‐court judge language with state law and to change the county’s procedure for providing legal defense to officers, employees and volunteers.
Get email alerts on the County Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Skagit County commissioners on April 7 approved code revisions that (1) reword county code concerning the number of district court judges to align automatically with future legislative changes, and (2) revise the county’s procedure for providing legal defense to officers, employees and volunteers when civil claims are filed.
Frederick Heist of the county prosecutor’s office explained the two sets of changes. The first is a housekeeping revision to the county code section that references the number of district court judges; the change is intended to “future proof” local code so county language will mirror whatever the state legislature sets for the county’s judicial allotment.
The second set of edits modifies the county’s defense procedure. Under the prior wording, the statute required an employee to request a defense and then the board would decide whether to provide it, which created timing problems when defendants needed to respond to complaints within statutory deadlines. The revised language flips the procedure so the county will generally provide an initial defense promptly to avoid prejudicing the employee, while preserving the board’s authority to later decide whether the county will continue providing that defense.
County staff said the change does not expand coverage for former employees; it was written to address timing and clarity issues and to make clear that mere allegations about lack of authority do not automatically bar the county from providing a defense.
The commissioners approved the ordinance revision by voice vote, 3 to 0. County counsel and public-works staff said the changes were reviewed with the prosecutor’s office to ensure compliance with state law.
