Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Opma topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
FAC members discuss OPMA, bylaws and an 'engage' page to manage public input
Summary
FAC members debated how to keep public access consistent with the Open Public Meetings Act and proposed using agenda slots and written bylaws to allow non-members to present (e.g., David Robeson) without triggering prohibited private deliberations.
The Ferry Advisory Committee discussed meeting conduct, the county 'engage' page and the limits of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) when responding to members of the public. Chair Jennifer described a protocol to allow non-members with subject expertise (for example, David Robeson) to appear on meeting agendas without becoming voting members; she said David has county clearance to post to the engage page but that committee members review content before posting.
"The state mandates that this committee can only be 5 people," Jennifer said, explaining that agenda slots are a mechanism to let non-members speak without breaching OPMA rules. Carrie agreed that agendizing such guests "gives the opportunity for the committee to engage in a conversation with them. So it's a perfect solution." The committee repeatedly flagged a 'drift' from OPMA norms where members and logged-on public participants have been speaking throughout meetings.
Public commenter Tom addressed the committee during public access and offered a legal view: "OPMA is actually silent on that. It says nothing about prohibiting conversations. Committees are free to engage with the public in any way they choose." Tom argued that failing to respond to public comment until a later agenda item can discourage participation.
Committee members proposed a short-term fix—re-up OPMA training for committee members—and a longer-term option to draft bylaws to clarify roles and meeting procedures. "Having something that says... here's what those roles mean" was described as a helpful way to prevent confusion about the chair and council liaison roles.
No formal governance changes were adopted at the meeting; members agreed to pursue training and to revisit bylaws and meeting procedures in future meetings.
