Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Engagement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters press work group for transparency, COI disclosures and clear engagement plan
Summary
During the meeting's public comment period residents urged the work group to publish conflict‑of‑interest statements, delay site-focused discussion until the full group is convened, and incorporate health and climate impacts into any planning or surveys.
Public commenters used the allotted public‑comment block to press the work group for clearer processes, transparency and narrower outreach framing.
Dylan, a Thurston County resident who has followed the process since 2021, asked the group to stop further meetings until the full CIWG is convened, to require conflict‑of‑interest statements from all work‑group members and to refrain from publishing lists of proposed sites before the complete group is seated. "Every one of you needs to sign a conflict of interest statement that assures the public you will not personally benefit from the activities of the CAWG," Dylan said.
Other commenters asked the group to (1) add a standing "public comment response" agenda item so the group responds on the record to prior comments, and (2) publish short summaries of what the work group has learned from speakers and briefings to date. Jane recommended adding an agenda segment that summarizes recent inputs and how the group has acted on them, while Ursula urged the consultant to fold public health and climate impacts into survey instruments and to disclose aviation greenhouse‑gas accounting assumptions.
How the group responded: staff and members said they do receive written public comments via the WSDOT email channel and that staff forward them to members; several members noted that they had already completed required disclosures when appointed but agreed to improve public transparency and FAQ material online. The group agreed to nominate a small outreach subgroup to draft a public‑facing process and response approach.
Why it matters: decisions about airport capacity, site suitability and transportation alternatives can materially affect local neighborhoods, public health and environmental justice communities. Commenters asked for timely, clear answers and for the work group to provide a mechanism showing how citizen input changes analysis or priorities.
What’s next: staff said they will work with members to post clearer FAQs and consider a small team to draft a public responses protocol and outreach plan ahead of the next meeting.
