HomeMy WebLinkAbout011226 email PUBLIC COMMENT - JCPRAB by-lawsALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Commissioners,
NB: The proposed by-laws for the JCPRAB in your agenda packet aren’t in a line-in-line-out format, so it is difficult to see what – other than the 2-year term mentioned in the cover
memo – has changed.
On pages 5-6 of the proposed by-laws for the JCPRAB, it states:
Reports, recommendations and correspondence from the JCPRAB shall be made by consensus, if
possible, and will seek opportunities to develop group solutions and resolve conflicts. To reach a
consensus decision, JCPRAB members will make proposals, hold additional discussion, and then the Chair
will call for the consensus decision on the proposal.
If consensus is not possible, then reports, recommendations, and correspondence shall be submitted to
the Board on behalf of a majority of the members over the signature of the Chair. Minority reports, if
any, shall be attached to and forwarded with such reports, recommendations, or correspondence
without comment by the Chair.
The above assumes that the Chair always votes in favor of an item to be submitted to the Board [of County Commissioners]. That is an unwarranted assumption. Further, a Chair may choose
to comment or participate in the preparation of a minority report; to constrain the Chair would be unfair, unequal treatment because all committee members – including the person serving
as Chair – should have an equal voice.
Also, as shown above, “Board” is ambiguous, given that the name of the subject committee includes “Board”. Similar ambiguities are present at several other places in the document; I
recommend that those be replaced by “BoCC” throughout (except, of course, in the initial reference, where “BoCC” would be defined.)
Regarding “20 CONDUCT …(b)”
Roberts Rules of Order shall apply for the conduct of the JCPRAB meetings
I recommend that the correct spelling of “Robert’s” be used and, more importantly, that the by-laws refer to “Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) latest edition”; starting with
the 11th edition, the Rules address rules for board meetings with about a dozen or fewer members.
Finally, the requirements of the OPMA that are included in these by-laws are only a subset of the complete Act.
Section 16 COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN PUBLIC MEETING [sic] ACT IS REQUIRED
Because the Board is required to consider JCPRAB recommendations before taking final action, all
meetings of the JCPRAB are subject to and shall conform with the provisions of the OPMA.
Section 16 is all that is needed and the OPMA should be incorporated by reference, not by including only snippets of the Act in these by-laws. The OPMA changes frequently. Incorporation
by-reference ensures that these by-laws will not have to be amended each time the OPMA is amended.
Thank you,
Tom Thiersch
Member, Washington Coalition for Open Government <https://www.washcog.org/>
==== [RCW 42.30.010 Open Public Meetings Act <https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.30&full=true> ] ==== ==== [RCW 42.56.030 Public Records Act <https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?ci
te=42.56&full=true> ] ====
"The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that 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 maintain control over the instruments that they have created."
###
P SAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary.