Charter review commissioners alleged San Juan County violated Open Public Meetings Act
A settlement agreement was reached on May 20, almost two years after Island County Superior Court ruled in an expedited hearing that the San Juan County Council did not have the authority to reject any proposed amendments to the county’s charter. The amendments were to be decided upon by the voters (“Court rules: San Juan County to vote on charter amendments,” Aug. 18, 2022)
Ten amendments altogether were recommended by the Charter Review Commission. The first six went on the ballot in 2021, but the CRC was not yet done with its work. They completed four more proposals, to go before the voters in 2022. These are the amendments that the Court said could not be blocked by the county council.
As Salish Current reported on the election results, the four amendments initially rejected by the council were also rejected by the voters. (“San Juan County voters reject ranked choice voting, spending measures“, Nov. 9, 2022)
The 2022 election was not the end of the matter, however. The plaintiffs alleged that San Juan County had violated Washington’s Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) when the council discussed the amendments behind closed doors before deciding not to put them on the ballot.
The plaintiffs, Sharon Abreu and Maureen See, are two of the 18 members of the 2020–2022 CRC. Elected in 2020, commissioners met weekly for months, conducting a thorough review of the charter.
Putting the amendments on the ballot did not stop the lawsuit. “Maureen and I put our names on the [legal] papers because we felt strongly that it was important to hold the County accountable,” Abreu told Salish Current. “Neither of us wanted to sue the County, and it’s a shame that it came to that,” she said, “but there needs to be some accountability for misconduct and violations. It would have been a disservice to everyone in San Juan County if we had just shrugged and walked away with our heads down kicking the dirt on this.”
After ‘arms-length discussion’
The defendant in the lawsuit is San Juan County. It also names individually the county council members at the time: Jamie Stephens, Christine Minney and Cindy Wolfe.
The settlement agreement states that San Juan County denies that it violated the OPMA. Nonetheless, it says “The Parties, through their respective counsel, engaged in arms-length discussions by telephone and email in order to reach agreed upon terms.”
The terms require that San Juan County pay $40,000 for the plaintiffs’ attorney fees. Additionally, it also requires that “By the end of 2024, each of the current San Juan County council members shall attend training given by the Attorney General’s Office on the Open Public Meetings Act.”
The state legislature passed the 2014 Open Government Training Act requiring members of governing bodies, including county and city council members, to take this training within 90 days after assuming their duties. They must also receive “refresher” training at intervals of no more than four years. The training can be done online, as well as in person.
The agreement acknowledges that Jamie Stephens had already left office and says “his successor automatically assumed his role in the litigation.” His successor, Jane Fuller, is the only county council member who will still be in office in 2025, since neither Minney nor Wolfe is seeking a second term.
Mark Tompkins, Director of Health and Community Services, signed the settlement agreement on behalf of the county as the Interim County Manager, a position he held for five months. In an interview Aug. 1, Tompkins said that the $40,000 has been paid and that the OPMA training has been scheduled during September.
Tompkins declined to speculate on the rationale for the council going into executive session. There are only a few exceptions to the requirement that government meetings be conducted in public, including real estate transactions, staff evaluations and litigation. “Litigation” was the reason noted on the agenda at the time.
Training for new staff and council
Former San Juan County prosecuting attorney Randy Gaylord participated in the executive session regarding the blocked amendments. An attorney from the prosecuting attorney’s office is also required to attend the OPMA training, as the County’s legal counsel, but none of the individuals who participated in the disputed meeting will still hold office in 2025.
Abreu said, “I was pleased that the settlement covered our attorneys’ fees and included an agreement to send a representative from the county prosecutor’s office to the Open Public Meetings Act o training.”
The state attorney general website states that open public meetings are intended to “give us an informed electorate that can evaluate the performance of elected officials and in order to ensure an honest, competent and responsive government.”
San Juan is one of seven of Washington’s 39 counties that has gone through the Home Rule Charter process to create their own structure of government.
San Juan County’s first charter was adopted in 2005. It includes the requirement that every 10 years there be an election of charter review commissioners, who review and propose amendments that go to a vote of the people. A previous review of the San Juan County charter took place in 2012.
Whatcom County is another of the seven Home Rule counties. Voters will elect commissioners this November who will begin review next year.
— By Nancy DeVaux