Residents urge Washington County to place 'rule of law' resolution on agenda
January 19, 2026 | Washington County, Oregon
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Residents representing a group calling itself Concerned Citizens of Washington County told the Board of Commissioners on Jan. 20 that they want a previously submitted "resolution in support of the rule of law" scheduled for public debate and a vote.
Susan Albright, who said she has lived in Washington County since 1983 and identified herself as a member of Concerned Citizens of Washington County, told commissioners the group's goal is "to have our elected bodies, such as this board, publicly consider, debate, and adopt resolutions that support the rule of law." She said the group submitted the resolution on Dec. 15 and was later told by board staff it was not on the Jan. 20 agenda.
Chair Harrington responded from the dais that the board would first need to decide whether to ask county counsel to review the proposed material to determine what portion "might actually apply to our work as a county versus what is in the total political realm," and warned that staff resources are "very, very strapped." Harrington said the board must weigh whether to redirect the county council's work to review the resolution.
Michael Donahue, who said he spoke on behalf of others supporting the resolution, told the board the text could be edited to remove contested language and argued that similar resolutions have been considered by more than 85 local jurisdictions in 23 states. He urged commissioners to "act as U.S. citizens who represent U.S. citizens in a time of great peril."
Other commenters — including Elizabeth Johnson and Glenn Denison — echoed the request that the board schedule the resolution and asked the commission to provide a written explanation for why it had not been placed on the agenda.
The board did not adopt or refer the resolution during the meeting. Chair Harrington said the first step would be whether the board wants county counsel to review the proposal; he suggested the question could be discussed further in board communications or a future work session.
The next procedural step on this item remained unresolved at the end of the meeting.
Susan Albright, who said she has lived in Washington County since 1983 and identified herself as a member of Concerned Citizens of Washington County, told commissioners the group's goal is "to have our elected bodies, such as this board, publicly consider, debate, and adopt resolutions that support the rule of law." She said the group submitted the resolution on Dec. 15 and was later told by board staff it was not on the Jan. 20 agenda.
Chair Harrington responded from the dais that the board would first need to decide whether to ask county counsel to review the proposed material to determine what portion "might actually apply to our work as a county versus what is in the total political realm," and warned that staff resources are "very, very strapped." Harrington said the board must weigh whether to redirect the county council's work to review the resolution.
Michael Donahue, who said he spoke on behalf of others supporting the resolution, told the board the text could be edited to remove contested language and argued that similar resolutions have been considered by more than 85 local jurisdictions in 23 states. He urged commissioners to "act as U.S. citizens who represent U.S. citizens in a time of great peril."
Other commenters — including Elizabeth Johnson and Glenn Denison — echoed the request that the board schedule the resolution and asked the commission to provide a written explanation for why it had not been placed on the agenda.
The board did not adopt or refer the resolution during the meeting. Chair Harrington said the first step would be whether the board wants county counsel to review the proposal; he suggested the question could be discussed further in board communications or a future work session.
The next procedural step on this item remained unresolved at the end of the meeting.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
