With a looming decision on complaints filed with the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) about the Sequim City Council’s handling of its support for the Sequim School District’s now approved bond and levy, councilors recently voted to amend their rules to allow junior taxing districts to request letters of support.

They unanimously approved a resolution at their March 24 council meeting to amend a portion of their “Revised City Council Rules” (3.9 b, d) from 2024 so junior taxing districts could ask for letters of support. Those agencies, city staff listed, include fire districts, public hospital districts, library districts, park districts, port districts, public utility districts, school districts, sewer districts, and water districts.

Previously, the city council did not allow letters of support from anyone as they wanted to be in compliance with RCW 42.17A.555, the statute prohibiting the use of public facilities to support or oppose ballot measures except in limited circumstances, according to city staff.

Under the March revision, individuals or outside agencies that aren’t junior taxing districts cannot ask for support for ballot issues.

For a junior taxing district’s letter of support, the council must now hold an open public meeting, post notice of the meeting and include the title and number of the ballot proposition, and allow members of the legislative body, members of the board, council, or commission of the special purpose district, or members of the public, an equal opportunity to express an opposing view.

At a Jan. 22 special meeting, councilors voted 5-0 to send a letter of support for the school district’s four-year $36.2 million Educational Programs & Operations (EP&O) levy renewal and a $145.95 million, 20-year construction bond. The levy passed with 9,738 (68.3%) yes votes and the bond received 9,256 (65.6%) votes in favor.

Prior, they voted 3-2 to suspend their rules in order to support the bond and levy. Deputy mayor Rachel Anderson and councilor Harmony Rutter voted no saying the council must follow its rules to remain unbiased.

Anderson said then she was in favor of changing them to allow letters of support for junior taxing districts.

Councilor Vicki Lowe said support for the schools was “extenuating circumstances” because “their buildings are failing.”

On March 24, Rutter was pleased with the change in the process.

“In my opinion, I’m glad that we were able to come together as a community and have a discussion and that the school district asked us for a letter of support and it sparked some conversation,” she said.

Status of complaints

Natalie Johnson, PDC communications specialist, wrote via email that complaints filed by Jeffrey Tozzer and Mark Klinke on the legality of the Jan. 22 special meeting remain in the “assessments of facts” stage, or the first 90 days of investigation.

“Staff are continuing to review the complaints,” she said.

In Tozzer’s complaint, he quotes councilors alleging that they had already decided to support the school district before hearing from constituents at the special meeting, and that the school district had provided a template for the letter of support.

Klinke agreed, writing that “the special meeting was a matter of formality so that they would not run afoul of requirements in RCW 42.17a.555 to get to that objective.”

They also wrote that the public notice for the meeting lacked notification that it would discuss the bond and levy.

In response to the complaints, city attorney Kristina Nelson-Gross wrote in a Feb. 25 letter to the PDC “that RCW 42.17 A.555 does not prohibit a city’s elected officials from supporting or opposing a ballot measure, provided that legally sufficient advance notice occurs and there is equal opportunity for opposing views to be heard.”

She added that “the PDC does not appear to have guidelines as to what constitutes ‘legally sufficient notice’ to members of the public who may wish to speak on the topic (so) the city resorted to compliance with the agenda posting notice requirements set forth in RCW 42.30, the Open Public Meetings Act.”

Nelson-Gross wrote that the discussion on waiving council rules was necessary to discuss the school district proposals, despite not being specifically mentioned in the public notice. She also stated that it’s unlikely the city council improperly influenced voters for the bond and levy measures due to the high percentage of people in favor of both.

Despite her counterarguments, Nelson-Gross wrote that the city council would follow any PDC recommendations and use updated procedures for considering a junior taxing district’s ballot measure:

• The public notice will include the title and number of the ballot proposition;

• Councilors and members of the public will be afforded an approximately equal opportunity to express an opposing view;

• Verbiage will be added to the website under the meeting date and on the notices stating: “Final action will/will not be taken at this meeting.”

When the PDC resolves the case, it will be updated at pdc.wa.gov/rules- enforcement/enforcement/enforcement-cases/166825.