County prosecutor briefs ethics commission on OPMA, Public Records Act and conflict rules

County counsel Katie Jolma presented a legal overview to the Clark County Ethics Review Commission on the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), the Public Records Act (PRA), relevant RCWs, county charter provisions that created the Ethics Review Commission, and HR Policy 13.1, which governs gifts, benefits and conflicts.

Jolma emphasized that the OPMA and PRA are broadly defined in state law and that the county's practice is to err on the side of openness. She noted the law's wide definitions of "action" and "meeting," warned that deliberations by a quorum outside an open meeting (including serial emails or phone calls) can constitute an OPMA violation, and explained that 24 hours is the bare-minimum notice for most meetings. "We tend to be conservative in deciding when there is a gray area within the law," Jolma said, adding that commissioners should recuse themselves when a vote could be perceived as biased.

Jolma also described HR Policy 13.1's scope—applying to county employees, volunteers and appointed board members—and said the county charter and proposed charter-review amendments may clarify the commission's purview over HR Policy 13.2 (use of county equipment). She recommended the commission coordinate with the Charter Review Commission and consider clarifying language in its bylaws to avoid overlap with human resources.

Commissioners asked for clarification about enforcement of OPMA (which Jolma said must be pursued through suit against the county) and whether HR Policy 13.2 falls under the commission's remit; Jolma advised outreach to the charter review drafters and bylaw revisions to clarify authority. The presentation closed with an offer from the Prosecuting Attorney's Office to assist with records questions and retention timelines.