Did town council err in nixing special planning meeting?

At its own special meeting Oct. 28, the La Conner Town Council voted to cancel a special planning commission meeting called for Nov. 1, directing “the Planning Commission to only conduct special meetings called by the chair, the chair pro-tern or requested by three commissioners; the same as the Town Council. The motion by Councilmember Rick Dole carried 4-0, with Councilmember Carlson abstaining.

Dole’s concerns, summarized in the council’s meeting minutes, were that “the Agenda that included items that were not legal, such as term limits. Also, it includes items that do not pertain to the Planning Commission’s purview, such as admin and attorney separation, accountability to code and transparency. A special meeting should be on a special purpose or action item.”

The minutes record Town Administrator Scott Thomas explaining “there was intent to identify language amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, but there was no language presented for other members of the community, that may be affected, to have the opportunity to participate in any meaningful fashion.”

The minutes also cite a concern over the “lack of participation of the community due to these meetings scheduled during the holiday season. We want to be sure everyone has an equal opportunity to participate.”

The minutes note that Dole and Councilmember MaryLee Chamberlain “feel many of the items on the Agenda could be discussed at a communication forum for public input.”

The Council is correct that three planning commission members are able to request a meeting. But are their other concerns, and vote, supported by the wording in the Revised Code of Washington? RCW 42.30.080, Special meetings states:

“(1) A special meeting may be called at any time by the presiding officer of the governing body of a public agency or by a majority of the members of the governing body by delivering written notice personally, by mail, by fax, or by email to each member of the governing body.”

Thomas responded to the Weekly News that the meeting’s agenda, from a resident, listed “a broad array of topics; the commission itself did not identify the nature of the topics to be discussed.” To him, that was not an agenda and did not specify “the topics of discussion, it would not be possible to notify the public at large of the business to be conducted at the meeting, and thus place us in violation of the Open Public Meetings Act. While this approach is admittedly conservative, the OPMA is to be liberally construed.”

Thomas cites RCW 42.30.010, Legislative declaration. The section includes:

“all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

“The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed and informing the people’s public servants of their views so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. For these reasons, even when not required by law, public agencies are encouraged to incorporate and accept public comment during their decision-making process.”

Thomas noted “the scope of topics veered away from the responsibilities delegated to the planning commission by the town council … (and) the planning commission is a recommending body. The council has retained its authority to provide direction to the commission.”

Town residents have been attending planning commission meetings for months to offer and support possible amendments to the comprehensive plan.