HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-30-2014 5-30-2014 Council Operations Committee Packet
Council Operations Committee
May 30, 2014 - 1:00 PM
City Hall Council Conference Room
AGENDA
I.CALL TO ORDER
A.Roll Call
B.Announcements
C.Agenda Modifications
II.CONSENT AGENDA
A. April 28, 2014 Minutes*
III.DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Council Committee Format*
IV.ADJOURNMENT
Agendas and minutes are available to the public at the City Clerk's Office, on the City website
(http://www.auburnwa.gov), and via e-mail. Complete agenda packets are available for
review at the City Clerk's Office.
*Denotes attachments included in the agenda packet.
Page 1 of 9
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
April 28, 2014 Minutes
Date:
May 27, 2014
Department:
Administration
Attachments:
4-28-2014 minutes
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:
Meeting Date:May 30, 2014 Item Number:CA.A
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDCA.A Page 2 of 9
Council Operations Committee
April 28, 2014 - 3:30 PM
Council Conference Room
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Roll Call
Chair Wagner called the Council Operations Committee meeting to
order at 2:36 p.m., in the Council Conference Room at Auburn City
Hall, 25 West Main Street in Auburn.
Members in attendance included Chair Rich Wagner, Vice Chair Bill
Peloza and Member Largo Wales. Also in attendance were Mayor
Nancy Backus, City Attorney Daniel B. Heid, Human Resources and
Risk Management Interim Director Rob Roscoe, and Deputy City
Clerk Shawn Campbell.
B. Announcements
There was no announcement.
C. Agenda Modifications
There was no agenda modification.
II. CONSENT AGENDA
A. March 24, 2014 Minutes
Vice Chair Peloza moved and Member Wales seconded to approve
the March 24, 2014 meeting minutes.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-0
III. ORDINANCES
A. Ordinance 6504
An Ordinance of the City Council of The City of Auburn, Washington,
creating a new chapter 2.08 of the Auburn City Code establishing an
Independent Salary Commission
Chair Wagner introduced Ordinance No. 6504. The Committee
discussed requiring anyone interested in applying to be a member of
the Independent Salary Commission fill out a volunteer application
form. Vice Chair Peloza stated commissioners need to be thoroughly
vetted before being appointed. City Attorney Heid stated this is
Page 1 of 3
CA.A Page 3 of 9
currently the City's policy for all boards and commissions
appointments.
Chair Wagner requested the population used for comparative
purposes be lowered to 25,000.
Vice Chair Peloza requested the Independent Salary Commission be
directed to consider all duties a councilmember performs in addition to
the standard Council duties.
The Committee discussed the addition of the Mayor to the current
ordinance. City Attorney Heid stated he has confirmed the City has
the ability to exclude the Mayor from the Independent Salary
Commission's purview. The Committee discussed a more in-depth
review of the Mayor's compensation package at a later date.
The Committee requested this Ordinance be forwarded to the Public
Works Committee for discussion, the Finance Committee for action
and to full Council for consideration on May 5, 2014.
IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. City Council Workshops (Heid)
Discussion of a Council Workshop format relative to the Council
Operations Committee
Chair Wagner noted changing from standing committees to a
workshop format is going to take time. The Council Operations
Committee will need to work out the logistics for ad hoc committees.
Changing the format will allow for individual councilmember to discuss
an item without creating a quorum of a standing committee. The
Council Operations Committee will need to determine if appeals will
be handled by the hearing examiner or by City staff.
Vice Chair Peloza stated the openness of the workshop process
allows all Councilmembers to hear items and discuss them openly.
The cost saving in both printing cost and staff time need to be
considered as a benefit of changing the Council format. He requested
a list of advantages and disadvantages for the proposed change be
provided at the next Council Operations Committee meeting. He also
would like additional information on the duties of an ad hoc committee.
Member Wales stated staff time and printing cost should not be the
deciding factor for changing the Council Committee format. The
current process allows for an idea to be completely vetted by a
majority of the Council. Member Wales expressed concerns
regarding Council being able to review items that require more in-
depth scrutiny. The role of the Council Operations Committee will
Page 2 of 3
CA.A Page 4 of 9
need to be redefined.
City Attorney Heid stated the workshop format allows Council to
spend time as a whole on the more important issues. An ad hoc
committee will not have any action so it will not have to adhere to the
open public meetings act.
V. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:29 p.m.
Approved this ___ day of May, 2014.
__________________________ __________________________
Rich Wagner, Chair Shawn Campbell, Deputy City Clerk
Page 3 of 3
CA.A Page 5 of 9
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Council Committee Format
Date:
May 27, 2014
Department:
Administration
Attachments:
OPMA
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:
Meeting Date:May 30, 2014 Item Number:DI.A
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.A Page 6 of 9
REPORT TO COUNCIL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Questions Regarding Informal Committees and the Open Public Meetings Act 1
REPORT TO COUNCIL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Questions Regarding Informal Committees and the Open Public Meetings Act
As we have discussed before, Washington’s Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) - RCW
Chapter 42.30 - controls how public agencies must conduct their meetings. RCW
42.30.030 declares that “[a]ll meetings of the governing body of a public agency shall be
open and public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the
governing body of a public agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.” RCW
42.30.020(2) defines "governing body" to mean the multimember board, commission,
committee, council, or other policy or rule-making body of a public agency, or any
committee thereof when the committee acts on behalf of the governing body, conducts
hearings, or takes testimony or public comment.
As an aside, I would note that the OPMA applies to “meetings of the governing body.”
Under RCW 35A.12.120, a quorum of the Council (or a committee thereof) must be
present for there to be a “meeting.” One of the challenges Auburn’s current committee
structure creates is that, with three-member committees, any time two members does
something that would be considered “action” under the OPMA, the notice and other
requirements of the OPMA are triggered. Adding further complication to this, RCW
42.30.020 provides a very broad definition of what constitution under the OPMA.1
Auburn, different than a number of other cities, formally established 2 its committees and
empowered them to act on behalf of the City Council in a variety of ways. For instance,
ACC 12.60.050D requires certain kinds of Type C right-of-way permits to be approved by
the Public Works Committee. Because Auburn’s committee structure has its committees
acting on behalf of the City Council, this structure almost always triggers the
1 RCW 42.30.020(3) "Action" means the transaction of the official business of a public agency by a
governing body including but not limited to receipt of public testimony, deliberations, discussions,
considerations, reviews, evaluations, and final actions. "Final action" means a collective positive or negative
decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a governing body when sitting as a body or
entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance.
2 In Clark v. City of Lakewood. 259 F.3d 996, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001), the court indicated that one of the factors
that indicates a body’s need to comply with the OPMA is the formality of its creation. In that case, the court
(also) held that OPMA applied to a (non-quorum) task force that took public testimony, held hearings, and
acted on behalf of the governing body. The court concluded that these activities placed it within the ambit
of RCW 42.30.020(2) without addressing the circumstances under which a committee "acts on behalf of a
governing body.” [As an aside, from my personal experience and familiarity with this case, I would say that
the task force did not hold public hearings, although (non-member) people did attend the task force
meetings.
DI.A Page 7 of 9
REPORT TO COUNCIL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Questions Regarding Informal Committees and the Open Public Meetings Act 2
requirements of the OPMA. In contrast with Auburn’s structure, many cities and counties
have “ad hoc” or “informal” committees that have limited power; because those
committees are not acting on behalf of the council, a quorum of the council is not
required for the committee to gather and discuss issues, and those gatherings do not
trigger the public meeting requirements of the OPMA.
It should be noted that a committee’s structure, ad hoc, standing, etc., is not the crucial
distinction regarding whether the OPMA applies. Rather, it is what the committee does. If
a group (less than a quorum) of councilmembers “acts on behalf of the governing body”,
conducts hearings, or takes testimony or public comment, that group would be subject to
the OPMA.
This necessarily leads to the critical discussion of when a group of councilmembers is
“acting on behalf” of the Council. In a recent case, Citizen’s Alliance v. San Juan County3,
the Court said “In sum, we adopt the reasoning of the 1986 [Attorney General Opinion]
and hold that a committee ‘acts on behalf of a governing body’ when it exercises actual or
de facto decision making authority.” In that case, the court found that because the party
challenging San Juan County submitted no evidence that the alleged committee exercised
actual or de facto decision making authority, no "meeting" occurred for OPMA purposes.
In looking at whether a committee exercises actual or de facto decision making authority,
the courts will, again, look at what the committee actually does, as well as how it was
established. If the Council formally designates some of its members to look at an issue,
but only empowers them to: 1) gather information (from staff, or their own research),
without taking public testimony or public comment and, 2) report back to the full council
with a recommendation and/or the results of their study, that committee will probably
not be held to be subject to the OPMA. This would apply if, for instance, the Mayor asked
a few Council members to participate in a working group.
On the other hand, if the Council formally designates some of its member to conduct
public meetings, take public testimony, or, as with some of our current code, to make
decisions on behalf of the Council, the OPMA will always apply. Checking with other
jurisdictions and the Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) in Seattle, it appears
that most jurisdictions do not use committees to the extent of and along the same lines
as Auburn has.
So, to answer a question posed by the Council Operations Committee, the City Council
could (less formally) establish ad hoc committees - to address specific questions or issues
3 Court of Appeals No. 70606-3-1, filed 4-28-14.
DI.A Page 8 of 9
REPORT TO COUNCIL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Questions Regarding Informal Committees and the Open Public Meetings Act 3
- where councilmembers would not be taking testimony or receiving statements from
individuals, and where that committee would only be making a recommendation to the
full City Council, and in that case, it would appear that the committee would not need to
comply with the OPMA challenges that go along with that.
The City Council could, likewise, keep some committees as formal committees that take
action on behalf of the City Council, e.g., the Council Operations Committee. But in that
case, the Committee would need to comply with the OPMA, and no two members of the
committee (assuming that the committee would be comprised of three members with a
two-person quorum) could meet to discuss issues that would come before the
Committee.
Another thing to keep in mind regarding less formal [non-OPMA] committees is that they
should not be attended by a quorum of the full City Council. Currently, Auburn Council
Committees are public meetings, published agendas, minutes and comply with the
OPMA. Therefore, attendance by a quorum of the City Council, or even by the entire City
Council would not be problematic.4
In conclusion, the City Council could establish informal sub-quorum committees in which
the members of the committees could evaluate among themselves particular issues. So
long as the informal committees do not hold public hearings to receive public testimony
(public comment) and no action is taken by the committee, other than to make a
recommendation to the full City Council, we should be fine. Consistent with the
authorities and references above, such committees would be outside the scope of the
OPMA.
Daniel B. Heid, Auburn City Attorney
5-28-14
4 MRSC answers the inquiry of when is a committee of the governing body is subject to the Open Public
Meetings Act as follows:
A meeting of a committee of a governing body is subject to the Open Public Meetings Act when it acts
on behalf of the governing body, conducts hearings, or takes testimony or public comment. RCW
42.30.020(2). A committee acts on behalf of the governing body when it exercises actual or de facto
decision-making power. AGO 1986 No. 16. So, for example, if a committee is merely gathering information
that will result in a recommendation to the full governing body, it most likely is not subject to the Open
Public Meetings Act because it is not exercising actual or de facto decision-making authority in these
circumstances.
DI.A Page 9 of 9