Editor,
I am uncomfortable by what the mayor and city council are discussing about Langley commission changes, in response to the newspaper reporting (Jan. 18, “Langley City Council resumes commission discussions”) regarding the Washington State Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) and the various City of Langley commission/committee meetings.
First of all, back in 1990, the city council decided to make all city committee meetings adhere to the OPMA, per the Langley Municipal Code. To discard that today is pretty much a long step backwards. The real issue is: Too. Many. Committees. And. Too. Many. Ad. Hoc. Committees.
Another significant issue I am not hearing this city discuss is the OPMA law, which was significantly updated by the state legislature as of March 24, 2022 and June 9, 2022. The legislature wanted to add MORE transparency and MORE public participation, not less, to the OPMA regulations.
I do not believe the majority of council, city committee/commission members have taken an in-depth OPMA update since those changes were made. Obviously, new committee/commission members would have had to have their OPMA training within 90 days of their start date, but there was not a requirement for existing people to take an update class. In the past, going back more than a decade, the city attorney has provided many major OPMA training classes for everyone, including the public, to attend. I have not seen this happen since before the 2022 updates.
Effective June 9, 2022, public comment at regular meetings of a governing body of a public agency where final action is taken is now a requirement. (Final action means a vote.)
Per OPMA, note that a governing body includes not just the city or county council or board of commissioners, but also planning commissions, civil service commissions, and other policy or rule-making bodies and committees that act on behalf of the governing body, conduct hearings, or take testimony or public comment.
All of Langley’s commissions currently take public comments. And those public comments are all taken on behalf of the governing body. All of the commissions and committees believe they are charged with making recommendations to the city council — and the city council gives all the committees far more time in council meetings to give reports and recommendations than is actually required in city municipal code.
So, by suggesting to the public that they can still have transparency is the most un-transparent comment I’ve ever seen. This statement is coupled with the statements that want to deny the public the ability to make public comments at certain commissions/committees which is very much a part of the updated OPMA. Advisory committees really need to hear directly from the public with their public comments before they advise the city council on anything — they cannot work in a protected “vacuum.” Keep in mind, these citizens are not elected by the voters, many of the Langley commission folks do not even live inside Langley, nor own a business inside Langley — yet they bring their advice and recommendations to the city council, and now the city council suggests the commissions shouldn’t have to be bothered with public participation??
The suggestion to allow city citizen committees to meet informally is a great way for misunderstandings to happen, and misunderstandings seem to breed litigation these days.
Leanne Finlay
Langley