This behavior by the Commissioners does not instill confidence.
The Open Public Meetings Act does allow executive sessions "(f) To receive and evaluate complaints or charges brought against a public officer or employee. However, upon the request of such officer or employee, a public hearing or a meeting open to the public shall be conducted upon such complaint or charge;" RCW 42.30.110(f)
It appears that is the exemption used for this meeting.
But the complaints or charges themselves should be a matter of public record, and the County has not provided these complaints or charges to The JOLT News. That seems wrong. We are entitled to know who has complained and about what. I complain frequently to my elected bodies; my complaints are not confidential.
The last time I remember an elected official being removed from committee assignments locally was about 20 years ago, when there was a bit of a nasty spat between two City Councilmembers. Eventually that suspension was lifted, and the Council proceeded with its business in normal order. In that case, we knew exactly what was complained about and by whom.
I am particularly concerned about the removal of Commissioner Clouse from the Climate and Behavioral Resources groups. She has specialized expertise in these areas, and is the best possible member of the Council on those issues. We elected her overwhemingly, by a 20-point margin over her opponent. We did that because we judged her a valuable representative. We are being denied the value that we voted for.
Yes, it's possible that my opinion could change, depending on the circumstances, but transparency is the best tool to address that, not secrecy.
Please explain the inappropriate content below.
