Clallam County Proposed Amendment No. 1

Committee: Ron Richards

Vote for this amendment to allow your voice to be heard and your questions regarding county government to be answered by the county commissioners. This amendment would require two town hall meetings a year in each County Commissioner District outside of normal working hours, one conducted by the district’s commissioner, and one conducted by all the commissioners. In these meetings people could ask questions, raise concerns and stay informed about county decisions by having their questions answered by the commissioner(s). The need for this amendment arose from the county commissioners’ practices of having their regular meetings at the county courthouse during normal working hours, far removed from the people in the outlying areas of the county and during times where working people could not easily attend. The need for this amendment also arose from the county commissioners’ practices of not answering questions presented to them in the public comment portions of their regular meetings. This typically left people feeling frustrated and the commissioners appearing non-responsive. By addressing these shortcomings of county government, this amendment will facilitate a better-informed public and promote more confidence in county government.

Committee: Jim Stoffer

Town halls are valuable. Putting their scheduling into the County Charter is not. A Charter should establish good government, not attempt to prescribe every practice of a good, elected official. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor Washington Constitution requires legislators to conduct constituent town halls. They hold them because listening and responding to citizens are responsibilities of good representation. Clallam County commissioners can–and already do–hold town halls throughout the county without a Charter mandate. Requirements for public engagement can be established through appropriate County policies or rules that can be improved as circumstances, technology, and citizens’ needs change. This amendment would instead permanently place meeting requirements in our foundational Charter while leaving important questions unanswered. It does not define a “town hall,” guarantee questions and answers, establish meaningful standards for public participation, or clearly define “normal working hours” or where the required notice must be posted. Requiring a meeting does not guarantee meaningful public engagement. We support accessible commissioners, district town halls, and vigorous public participation. But good representative practices do not all belong in the County Charter. Vote NO on putting town hall scheduling into the Charter–and YES to commissioners continuing to meet directly with the people they represent.