PORT ANGELES — Clallam County commissioners have moved to repeal a controversial ordinance that enables the use of Opportunity Funds to pay for Economic Development Council staff.
Commissioners Jim McEntire and Bill Peach voted Tuesday to call for a March 17 hearing on the repeal of Ordinance 898, with Commissioner Mike Chapman abstaining.
Citing “technical difficulties” with the Jan. 27 ordinance, McEntire said he would “find another path” to help the private nonprofit do a better job recruiting businesses and keeping jobs in Clallam County.
The ordinance has triggered a public backlash and a lawsuit filed by Ron Richards, a former Clallam County commissioner.
Richards has begun a referendum petition, appealed a ballot title and requested declaratory and injunctive relief, according to the Feb. 13 notice of appeal.
Despite the lawsuit, McEntire remains committed to drawing $500,000 from the sales-tax-supported Opportunity Fund to double the EDC’s workforce by hiring two employees through 2017.
“Substantively I’m totally there, but technically I just don’t think we need to spend county money on defending a lawsuit,” said McEntire, an EDC board member.
“Let’s see if we can find another path.”
Chapman abstains
Chapman, who voted no on the ordinance, said he would “sit this one out.”
“My guess is a vote to rescind the ordinance would be a vote to support taking the money out of the general fund or some other pot,” Chapman said in a Monday work session.
“This thing just goes from bad to worse.”
The ordinance amended Clallam County Code Chapter 5.40 by eliminating language that limits Opportunity Fund spending to infrastructure projects.
It also dissolved the Opportunity Fund Advisory Board in favor of a yet-to-be-assembled council composed of the various local governments in the county.
State law allows a legislative body like the Board of County Commissioners to use the Opportunity Fund for infrastructure or personnel in economic development offices.
Clallam Prosecuting Attorney Mark Nichols told commissioners that Chapter 5.40 trumps the less-restrictive Chapter 5.30 when it comes to the use of the Opportunity Fund.
“Suffice to say, there may be some merit in revisiting the ordinance itself, primarily because we’re at a juncture where we can determine how we want to be spending county resources, i.e., fighting a lawsuit or instead perhaps looking back around and revisiting how this was done,” Nichols said.
Peach supports repeal
Commissioner Bill Peach said would support a repeal of the ordinance.
“I don’t want to see county resources being spent in a manner that can be avoided,” Peach said.
“I do think there are alternatives when it comes to supporting the EDC.”
Richards told Superior Court Commissioner and retired Judge Ken Williams that a repeal of Ordinance 898 “would not render [the] matter moot,” according to the minutes of a Tuesday court hearing.
Chapman on Monday said information Nichols told commissioners in a closed session was not made public.
He took his fellow commissioners to task for withholding the legal advice from the related closed-door executive session.
He said the advice was part of a public legislative process and questioned whether it could be suppressed under transparency laws.
“There’s a reason why the ordinance is going to be rescinded, and the public isn’t going to know that reason,” Chapman said.
McEntire said the advice is protected from disclosure under the Open Public Meetings Act and should be kept private because it involves legal strategy.
“We need to be able to speak frankly off the record when it’s appropriate to do so under the Open Public Meetings Act, when it’s legal to do so, and have an unvarnished, honest conversation to weigh all the things there are to weigh,” McEntire said.
Before abstaining from the call for a hearing, Chapman urged his fellow board members to permit Nichols to disclose what was said in executive session.
“I think Mr. Nichols would like to release his advice,” Chapman said.
Vote of two or more
Nichols told commissioners in their work session that such disclosure would require a vote of two or more commissioners.
“He is a fellow elected officer of your own party,” Chapman told his Republican seatmates.
“Let Mark share his advice with the public so the public knows why we came to this point.”
In a later interview, Chapman said he could not disclose what Nichols said without a vote of two commissioners.
“In my opinion, most of the conversation in executive session had to do with legislative matters,” Chapman said.
“I’m really tempted to tell you what he said, but out of respect for Mark, I’m going to follow his advice.”
Based on his conversations with business owners, Chapman said the EDC has a poor track record of recruiting businesses.
The fact that it cannot afford to pay for it own staff “tells me a lot,” he said.
“It’s very important that we have a discussion about economic development, but this seems like money down the drain,” Chapman said.
“Right now, we’re not moving our economy forward; we’re arguing.”
A motion hearing in Richard’s lawsuit is set for March 25.
________
Reporter Rob Ollikainen can be reached at 360-452-2345, ext. 5072, or at rollikainen@peninsuladailynews.com.