UPDATE 11/1/2012: San Juan County Council meeting has been cancelled.
The San Juan County Council will conduct a Special Meeting on Friday, November 2, 2012 beginning at 10 a.m. in the Legislative Building, 55 Second Street, Friday Harbor.
The purpose of the Special Meeting is to conduct an EXECUTIVE SESSION to discuss Evaluation of the Performance of a Public Employee pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(g) and an EXECUTIVE SESSION to discuss current and pending litigation pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).
Hmmm. Under the current Charter, the Council only has one employee — the interim Administrator. Is that what they’re discussing, or are they trying to do damage control for a personnel action taken by that Administrator?
Do the Council members know that they can only use Executive Sessions to discuss current or potential litigation if their attorney (the PA) is present, and they are discussing matters covered by the attorney-client privilege?
Vote for Props. 1, 2 and 3 to clean up the Council’s act!
What public employee and what is the cause? What is the point of the information they give us? If this is in response to some regulation that says the public has to be informed of scheduled and special meetings, the purpose of which need be no more than hinted at, then . . . hey! That regulation should be changed! What is the deal, Councillors? If you’re going to inform us, which I believe it is your solemn responsibility to do . . .then for heaven’s sake, inform us! Straight talk, if you please!
This is a notice of an executive session meeting in compliance with state law which says “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.” This is no different than executive sessions for the Library Board or the Fire Department Board. And nothing in the state code says the Prosecuting Attorney must be present (read RCW 42.30.110). In addition, this would not change in any way with passage or Charter Props 1,2 or 3 and any insinuation that it would is completely inaccurate.
Thank you James. On your advice I decided to read RCW 42.30.110 and would like to thank you for posting true and acurate information instead of posting references to RCW’s and then following that information with misleading statements. (Please note that I selected the important lines from the code)
RCW 42.30.110
Executive sessions.
(1) Nothing contained in this chapter may be construed to prevent a governing body from holding an executive session during a regular or special meeting:
(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.
(i) To discuss with legal counsel representing the agency matters relating to agency enforcement actions, or to discuss with legal counsel representing the agency litigation or potential litigation to which the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to become, a party, when public knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency.
Sorry – per the posting by the county, here is subsection (g):
(g) To evaluate the qualifications of an applicant for public employment or to review the performance of a public employee. However, subject to RCW 42.30.140(4), discussion by a governing body of salaries, wages, and other conditions of employment to be generally applied within the agency shall occur in a meeting open to the public, and when a governing body elects to take final action hiring, setting the salary of an individual employee or class of employees, or discharging or disciplining an employee, that action shall be taken in a meeting open to the public;