— from Acting Chief Scott Williams and representatives of San Juan County Fire District #2 —
We are responding to comments from community members to recent news (see orcasissues.com/coffin-resigns-fire-commission-dicaprio-appointed/) regarding the Fire District. We appreciate that several people took the time to offer their viewpoints.
1. Facilities Maintenance Contract: The district is exploring options for maintaining the buildings and properties associated with the fire department. We have identified ongoing maintenance needs and specific repair issues. Greg Sawyer, a representative from the San Juan County Facilities Department, was at the board meeting and was able to explain the opportunities that a partnership with the county would offer regarding facilities management. Mr. Sawyer is a county employee and not a contractor. He did explain that he maintains a roster of ‘Contractors’ for the county related to specific maintenance services. An inter-local agreement is under consideration between Fire District #2 (Orcas Island Fire and Rescue) and the San Juan County Facilities Department. The possible agreement is currently being vetted to ensure that it would produce meaningful operational and cost efficiencies. No decision has been taken on the agreement at this time.
2. Appointment of a commissioner: The statutory process for replacing a commissioner is clear. According to the Washington State Fire Commissioner’s Handbook, … “a Commissioners may resign for any reason. Resignations are effective when accepted by the board and cannot be revoked after having been accepted”. … A resignation creates a vacancy, … ”If two or more board members remain, the board members have 90 days to fill the vacancy. If not filled within 90 days or only a single board member remains, the County legislative authority fills the vacancy. Individuals appointed to fill a vacancy serve until a new commissioner is elected at the next commissioner election (odd years). The person elected then serves the remainder of the term of that commissioner position.” We realize that many in the community feel that the process in this case lacked transparency and an opportunity to provide input on selection of a replacement commissioner. While the authority to appoint a new commissioner remains firmly with the Commission, the Board of Fire Commissioners is open to suggestions from the community regarding individuals interested in filling future vacancies.
3. About special meetings: RCW 42.30.080 states in subsection (3) …”The call and notices required under subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted. Final disposition shall not be taken on any other matter at such meetings by the governing body”. This relates to the Handbook regarding its’ description of special meetings, …”The notice must state the subject matter to be discussed at the meeting. The board may not take final action on any item not specified in the notice”. We would like to clarify that the official resignation of Commissioner Coffin will occur in September prior to the Regular Scheduled Meeting. He will still be acting in the capacity of a Commissioner until his official resignation date. Therefore, the official appointment of another individual to this position cannot occur till September. So, the question is, with the Commission having the ability to appoint a replacement to a vacancy due to a resignation, when should this intent be discussed with the community. The Agenda for the Special Meeting on 22 August included the topic of Commissioner Coffin’s resignation because it is will occur before the Regular Scheduled Meeting. This was an effort by the Commission to take proactive steps to inform the community about the resignation and a highly qualified candidate to replace Commissioner Coffin.
4. TJ DiCaprio: Ms. DiCaprio has withdrawn her name for consideration as a replacement for Commissioner Coffin. We regret that Ms. DiCaprio has withdrawn her name and we wish her well in her future endeavors.
5. In reference to RCW 52.14.015. This RCW refers to “Increase in the number of commissioners—Election”. This section does not discuss ‘equal representation’. The section within RCW 52.14, which touches on the topic of equal representation, is RCW 52.14.013 and it discusses the “Creation” of “Commissioner districts” which can be created within a fire protection district. San Juan County Fire Protection District #2 does not have sub-commissioner districts that we are currently aware of. So, the board may benefit in the future from additional board members and representation from different communities on Orcas Island, but the current board is not in violation of RCW 52.14. Location on the Island should not be a deterrent for qualified individuals to support and lead the fire department.
The Commissioners, officers, staff and volunteers of Orcas Island Fire and Rescue are honored to serve our community. We operate the department under the guidelines and rules established by the Washington County fire Commissioners Handbook, relevant RCWs and the best interests of the community. We’d like to thank everyone for his or her recent comments.
Scott,
As one of those that commented on the recent activity, please have my assurance that the comments were directed squarely at the commissioners – not at the operating staff or volunteers of the Orcas Fire Department. Those activities have nothing to do with your or your staff’s operations and decisions.
With that said, I am somewhat surprised that it is you who is having to take your time to respond to the issues that have been raised regarding violations of procedure at the commission level. The duty to respond to these concerns rests squarely on the shoulders of the commission. Commissioner Bedell has indicated that there would be a special meeting to address the issues, and I think that was the appropriate response. But, since you have responded, I must say that I am surprised at the language used in the response, as it skirts many of the issues at hand. Either we have been unclear in our objections or there is a lack of understanding at the commission level of public process. To help clarify the discussion and perhaps properly state the concerns of myself and several others in the community, I will address them according to your order of reference above:
1.) No question as to this item.
2.) The issue has nothing to do with the sitting Commissioners statutory authority to appoint a new commissioner. It also has nothing to do with who they must consider. The issue/question at hand has to do with how the process unfolded at the last meeting. OIFR Commissioners met in an executive session and emerged with the selection of a replacement for Commissioner Coffin. This is illegal under the statute on several levels. First – a replacement can only be selected once Commissioner Coffin has officially resigned. Ostensibly, that will happen at the September meeting. That being the case, a replacement could be selected at that meeting, following the official acceptance of his resignation. Second – it appears that the board took action and made a selection in an executive session. This is also an illegal action, as no decisions can be made outside of a public meeting. This is compounded by the inference drawn from that process which implies that the commissioners discussed the selection in executive session, which is a violation of allowable topics protected by the executive session exemption. Finally, by announcing the appointment of the candidate at the meeting, the Commissioners created a situation where they may possibly have created 4 commissioners for a district that is only allowed to have 3 sitting commissioners. Because we have no public record of the decision made at the executive session it is hard to ascertain if this situation existed.
As you state, “the authority to appoint a new commissioner remains firmly with the Commission”. On this we can agree. The issue is whether the commissioners are obligated to follow Washington State Law in doing so – and on that we should all agree.
3.)What I read here is an attempt to semantically step back a serious and potentially illegal procedural issue that unfortunately took place. The law is clear that there is to be no action taken at the meeting that is not on the agenda. The agenda did mention the resignation of a commissioner, which was consistent with the announcement of Commissioner Coffins resignation at the meeting. Since his resignation will not take place until the next meeting, technically, there was no need to even publish this in the agenda because there was no action taken. The recognition of this item falls under “information”, not “action”. The issue with this item is because of action taken with regard to the identification of his replacement. The announcement was not -We think we have a great replacement- The announcement was -We have the replacement-. There can be no replacement, as there is technically not a vacancy. Further, there can be no replacement, because it was not on the agenda. This was not an intent to “discuss” the appointment with the community…it was a declaration of an appointment (the discussion and decision was made in the illegal executive session).
4. It is unfortunate that Ms. DiCaprio has withdrawn her name. From all appearances it looks like she was an exceptionally well qualified individual to fill some of the needs on the OIFR board. I do not believe there is anyone involved in this discussion that questions her abilities or motives.
The question that must be asked is, how did she come to be selected and recruited as a appointee and to what extent did this process happen outside of the publics eye. The public is entitled to a full view of how this process unfolded.
5. I am not aware of any question regarding a violation of 52.14.015. and in fact, 52.14.015 includes no jurisdiction or guidelines regarding residency districts.
I fully believe that no one at the Fire Department or on the OIFR board made their decisions with any ill intent. But it is also clear that there needs to be an acknowledgment that there was a fairly sizeable lapse which violated Washington State Law in the way things were executed. Given the level of scrutiny that the Fire Department is operating under, I believe it is in the best interest of the department to be 100% open in their analysis of this situation. I look forward to hearing from the commissioners at their next meeting as to their intended path forward.
I absolutely concur with everything that Justin as stated quite eloquently.
I, too, am extremely disappointed that is the Acting Fire Chief who is responding to concerns of several community members, myself included. regarding these issues.
The failure to follow State Law is at the Board level and the Board should respond to the community accordingly. It is imperative that this question be revisited at a Special Meeting at which Jim Coffin’s resignation can be accepted and a vacancy announced with appropriate conditions for filling the position. Until Commissioner Coffin officially resigns, there is no vacancy.
Thank you Justin for a very well stated summation of this situation.
This information is provided to every person appointed to county committees. Is it not given to those elected to boards?
Training in Washington State’s Open Government laws is not only available, it is *required*:
https://www.atg.wa.gov/open-government-training
Sounds like an interested person with strong board experience who is accustomed to following Washington State’s Open Meetings Act might be useful on the Commission. I suspect there are interested people so long as the process is open and available to all, and Commissioners stop self-appointing their successors.
Well said and well reasoned, Justin. Thank you.