Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Executive Session Intergovernmental topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clallam County commissioners enter executive session on potential litigation, then direct outreach to Port Angeles and Sequim
Summary
At a special Clallam County meeting, commissioners entered an executive session under RCW 42.30.110 to discuss potential litigation and then approved two motions directing the county administrator to contact the city managers of Port Angeles and Sequim and to draft written correspondence; both motions passed by voice vote.
The Clallam County Board of Commissioners held a special meeting and entered an executive session under Washington’s open‑meetings statute (RCW 42.30.110) to discuss potential litigation, the board said.
Mike French, chair, moved to enter executive session “for 45 minutes” to consult with the prosecuting attorney’s office about litigation and was seconded; the board left the public record and later reconvened as scheduled. The board noted Judge Seager participated during the session and said Judge Jay Cooper was added to the conversation while the session was underway.
After returning to the public record, a commissioner moved to authorize the county administrator to perform outreach to the city managers of Port Angeles consistent with the discussion in the executive session; the chair seconded the motion. The board approved the motion by voice vote. The same commissioner then moved to direct the county administrator to craft written correspondence to the cities of Port Angeles and Sequim, including any communication or contracts discussed in the executive session; the chair seconded and the motion passed by voice vote.
County officials present for or named during roll call included Mark Lane (CFO), Clark Nichols (county prosecuting attorney), Steve Allen (prosecutor’s office), Jay Reno (civil deputy), Frank Johnson (county commissioner), and Tom Noki (county administrator). The transcript shows the board set a hard stop for the executive session and briefly extended the session so that any resulting actions could be clearly stated on the record; they returned to the record at 9:00 a.m. and noted a short additional reconvening at 9:05 a.m.
The motions were recorded as approved by voice; the transcript does not provide a numerical roll-call tally or record any dissents. The board did not provide further procedural details about the substance of the litigation discussion while in executive session, citing the statutory exemption for attorney‑client and litigation consultation.
The board concluded by asking if anything else was needed and then closed the meeting. The county administrator was directed to proceed with outreach and to prepare the written correspondence described in the motions.
