Hey, Look What I Just Sent To County Council...

If developers and law firms can send draft legislation to County Council... so can I.

This is about the whole "no comments on GPT thing".

Enjoy...

Whereas, on May 8, 2012, the Chair announced that the Council was advised by the County Prosecutor's office to no longer hear public comments on the Gateway Pacific Terminal during Open Session; and

Whereas, this advice was given on the grounds that such comments constitute ex-parte communication, and by that virtue constitute a violation of the Appearance Of Fairness Doctrine; and

Whereas, it is more likely than not that members of the public will attempt to make comments germane to the Gateway Pacific Terminal in future Open Sessions; and

Whereas, legal advice is not, by itself, binding on the Council; and

Whereas, the County Charter is, by itself, binding on the Council; and

Whereas, Section 2.22 of the Charter expressly places the authority to decide how to conduct Council business to the Council itself; and

Whereas, Section 1.50 of the County Charter requires a separation of branches; 

Whereas, the County Prosecutor's office is not organized under the Legislative Branch of County government; and

Whereas, the Council is prevented by the Charter from delegating decision-making authority to the County Prosecutor's office; and

Whereas, the Council is bound by law to decide how to handle Open Session during its meetings; and

Whereas, RCW 42.36.060 explicitly allows for exceptions to the prohibition on ex-parte communication, provided that the communication is made on the record; and

Whereas, all comments made during Open Session are made on the record; and

Whereas, the Open Public Meetings Act establishes that the only requirement that may be imposed on the attending public at an Open Public Meeting is orderly conduct; and

Whereas, disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor criminal offense according to RCW 9A.84.030; and

Whereas, it is unlikely in the extreme that a jury would find a member of the public who commented about the Gateway Pacific Terminal in Open Session at a Council meeting to be guilty of disorderly conduct; and

Whereas, requiring the attending public to refrain from commenting on the Gateway Pacific Terminal at a Council Meeting constitutes imposing a requirement on attendance that goes beyond requiring orderly conduct, and by that virtue is a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act; and

Whereas, the Council can't knowingly violate the Open Public Meetings Act; and

Whereas, it is more likely than not that RCW 42.36.060 allows for comments made during Open Session to be made without violating the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine; and

Whereas, the Open Public Meetings Act is a specific statutory law, and the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine is a general doctrine based on a body of case law; and

Whereas, it is an ancient legal maxim that generalia specialibus non derogant ("the general does not detract from the specific"), in the event that there is apparent conflict between a general legal doctrine and a specific statutory law, it stands to reason that the general yield to the specific; now, therefore be it

Resolved, that the County Council shall, as a matter of policy and against advice of the Prosecutor's Office, impose no restrictions on public comments germane to the Gateway Pacific Terminal during Open Session of Council meetings until such a time as the County Prosecutor's Office can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County Council that such a restriction will in no way violate the Open Public Meetings Act.