Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Clallam County commissioners on public‑comment limits, transparency and code enforcement
Summary
During two public‑comment periods residents repeatedly criticized the board’s new policy limiting comments on recent work‑session items, questioned transparency around grants and the 75/25 tribal rebate, and urged clearer public records and engagement. Commissioners said staff will draft public‑records comments for board review on Dec. 30.
Multiple residents used the Dec. 17 general meeting to press Clallam County commissioners on perceived limits to public input and a lack of transparency.
Ed Bowen, who identified his mailing address in Clallam Bay, said he “totally disagree[d]” with the chair’s new practice of pushing work‑session items to the end of the agenda and objected that he could not comment on items brought up in a previous work session. Bowen said he planned to stay for the end of the meeting to address those items.
John Worthington of Sequim and other commenters accused the county of channeling local matching funds to externally guided projects (he referenced Washington Water Trust and Dungeness grants) and complained about limited opportunities to review how funds are spent. Jeff Tozer (Jamestown Road) criticized the board’s fiscal choices and highlighted voucher payments and local catering costs as examples of waste.
An extended public‑comment block included a detailed written statement from another resident criticising code‑enforcement contracting and a request for more rigorous review of spending. Denise Lapio raised pedestrian‑safety concerns at local roundabouts.
In response, the chair and staff said county staff will draft comments on public‑records issues for the board to review at the Dec. 30 work session and that any board action on those comments would occur at a subsequent meeting. The chair confirmed there had been an executive session earlier in the day and said no action followed from it; outside counsel’s options on a separate personnel 'corner' issue were to be refined at a future work session.
What residents asked for: clearer notice about the charter review committee schedule, more accessible auditing of rebate programs, a less restrictive approach to public comment on work‑session items, and more transparent accounting of contract expenditures.
Next steps: staff will post the Dec. 30 work‑session packet (including drafted public‑records comments) and the board expects to consider submitting comments at the Jan. 7 meeting or the Dec. 31 packet as applicable.
