— by Pierrette Guimond, a concerned citizen —
The Community voted to increase the Board to five Commissioners and I was supportive of that
process. The Commissioners elected by the people, represent the people and hopefully make good
decisions with our tax dollars that support a great department and dedicated volunteers.
In December the Board voted for a new process relating to public comment at their meeting. A member of
the public must sign up in order to make comments or ask questions. and a Commissioner will respond through the District Secretary if there is a question after the meeting. Documents are not available to the public as it had been before.
A public record request is necessary in order to get copies of all documents that are presented at a public meeting and they have 5 business days to fill the request.
By law Tax District do not have to take public comments but The Council, School District, Library District, Cemetery District, Park District, Port District have been open to listen to the public and provide documents at the meetings.
The Fire Department March 19th regular meeting was cancelled without any explanation.
The March 22nd meeting lasted nine minutes and all regular business was deferred to the April 16th,
regular meeting. [The March 22 meeting] was attended by three Commissioners, the Chief and Secretary.
Two public comments were made and documents were signed at the end of the meeting without any
motion to approve.
The Commissioners received $112.00 for attending a meeting, so the March 22nd, nine-minute meeting
cost the taxpayers $37.00 a minute. That is all part of our $2-million dollar budget.
This response is submitted on behalf of the Board of Fire Commissioners.
“In response to the above letter by Ms. Guimond, the Commissioners echo her outline of the positive changes that have been made by the BOFC with regard to documents and public comment. The new public comment procedure, which began at the January 2018 meeting, provides much needed structure and a clear follow up process, if needed. Those who wish to speak at a meeting will need to enter their name, topic to discuss, and email or address prior to the meeting being called to order. The new procedure moved public comment to the beginning of each meeting. This allows community members who wish to make a comment, but not stay through the entire meeting, to have the opportunity to do so. Public Comment is limited to 3 minutes with additional time allowed as moved by Commissioners. If necessary, Commissioners, or staff, will be appointed to follow up to public comment according to the sub committee on which they serve.
Occasionally, meetings have to be cancelled or delayed. The reason a meeting is cancelled is not required by law to be announced. The law does require, however, that the BOFC conduct a meeting each month. The Commissioners feel it is important to conduct business when each member can be present, thus the expedited agenda which occurred on March 22, 2018. It is standard practice for the Commissioners to sign documents which do not have to be voted on or approved.
Once documents are approved and signed, they are then subject to public records request. Under the law, documents which are draft versions are not subject to public release. Firm adherence to the laws which govern the BOFC are paramount to the successful Board operations we have experienced. Documents will now be more easily visible to the public with the creation of the new website. The BOFC will make every effort to have approved documents uploaded to the website as soon as possible.
Though the Open Public Meeting Law is fairly specific, it does leave room for different agencies to decide how to implement the regulations. We understand that for members of the public, this can create some confusion. The Orcas Island BOFC consults with both legal counsel and the Washington State Board of Fire Commissioners to ensure we are in full compliance with requirements of the law and to follow best practices established by Fire Commission Boards across our State. In so doing, we agree that the changes made are both compliant and best practice.”
Well, the proof will be in how it works for the public…
Being “in compliance” and being willing to listen to concerned citizens during critical discussions is two different things. As a former OIFD board member I succeeded in changing our pubic comment policy to continuing pubic comment at the beginning of meetings but added opportunities for the people paying the bills (the public) to comment AFTER the board discussed an issue and BEFORE we voted. There was also a public comment opportunity at the end of each meeting. This was never a problem and in fact often helped us decide which path to take. Otherwise, how can board members know how taxpayers feel? I personally know and respect most of the current board and I am thankful for their service but this new policy of not allowing the public to speak during specific discussions or to even see budget proposals, policy changes, other documents, etc. until after they are passed is truly beyond me.
Draft documents are not PROHIBITED from publication on a website. That is the Commissioners’ choice. County Council publishes almost all of the draft documents it will be considering at its meetings on its website well in advance of the meeting. This seems like a practical process if you wish commenters to be educated about the agenda. Requiring anyone to make a public record request in this day and electronic age is a major step backwards.
Excuse me, Maria, but I believe that such draft documents ARE a matter of public record and SHOULD be made available for public viewing according to the Public Records Act. But I will have to check the exact wording of the state law to make sure.
Just checked and RCW 42.56.10 Definitions states unambiguously:
“Public record” includes ANY WRITING containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency REGARDLESS OF PHYSICAL FORM OR CHARACTERISTICS. (Emphasis added in CAPS)
That seems pretty clear, Maria, but exclusions may apply. If so, please enlighten me.
THAT SEEM
With regard to draft documents, I would refer you all to the exclusionary section of the RCW. When referring to draft documents it specifically indicates these are not subject to public records requests. The citation is as follows:
“RCW 42.56.280 Preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, intra-agency memorandums. Preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, and intra-agency memorandums in which opinions are expressed or policies formulated or recommended are exempt under this chapter,”
There is a distinction between “preliminary drafts” and the draft being put forth for action at a commissioners’ meeting.
The point is that the Commissioners can publish anything they please on the website. If they wish to share information, they are free to do so. If they wish to have an informed public participating, it only makes sense to post the material they will be considering. Making documents available only after signing renders public comment moot.
Yes, and speaking now as a writer on political (as well as scientific) subjects, it is extremely helpful to have records of what may have been presented to the public before a public meeting and the final version adopted by a board or council. Trying to bury the draft documents hides the decision-making process from later public scrutiny.