March 27, 2024 Dena Jensen

During her Mayor’s Report at the March 11, 2024 Bellingham City Council meeting, Bellingham Mayor Kim Lund had announced that at the next City Council meeting the Administration was going to bring forward a Boards and Commissions Expectations document “to establish clear expectations about the important work that these groups do.” At Bellingham’s City Council meeting this week on March 25, that did not happen.

This document was referenced in a list of five “Proposed Next Steps” drafted by the City’s Interim Deputy Administrator Janice Keller which was presented to Bellingham City Council Members on January 29, 2024 at their Committee of the Whole meeting where Council Members took their first vote to approve the ordinance to suspend the meetings of the Immigration Advisory Board.

Since then, through the City’s adoption of the ordinance to suspend the Immigration Advisory Board, the City Council accepted the City Administration recommendation that no timeline be created to accomplish any of the proposed next steps.

So far, these next steps are moving, if at all, in the dark. This is during a time that there is currently no City board allowed to exclusively focus on removing and preventing dangers for immigrants in Bellingham. Now the fact that the recent self-identified date for a next step offered by the Mayor was not adhered to makes the darkness darker. Community members aren’t able to witness visible progress, and presently there is an increased reason to be concerned that it won’t be made in a timely manner.

All of this emphasizes the importance for all of us to remind City officials that we call for action to expedite the City Council rescinding the suspension of the Immigration Advisory Board. Contact information is at the bottom of this blog post.

This week I sent a second email to City Council Members to ask them to take action to remove untrue claims in the recitals of the IAB suspension ordinance. I sent my first email on March 21, 2024 related to the unsubstantiated and untrue claim that certain IAB Members were resisting presentations from the City. The email I sent yesterday on March 26 was regarding, among other things, likely untrue information in a different recital that claims the IAB was required to participate in periodic training on the Public Records Act.

Details are in my email I sent yesterday morning that I am including below, along with a follow-up email I sent in the late afternoon with some clarifying information and more details:

Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 at 07:29:08 AM PDT

Subject: Additional action required, plus context for 2 other recitals from the ordinance passed to suspend the Immigration Advisory Board

Dear Bellingham City Council:

I have written recently related to information in one of the recitals in the ordinance you passed on February 12, 2024 to suspend meetings of the Immigration Advisory Board that is untrue, according to public records which have been made available to me. I have included a copy of that email below my signature, so you can have all the recent material I have sent you about the IAB suspension ordinance recitals in one place. [I have not included that email in the content of this blog post, but a copy is available in a former blog post at this link.]

Today I am writing about two other recitals, one of which I believe to contain untrue information. The part of that recital that remains accurate, in combination with a second recital I am highlighting, are ones I also want to provide some information about in order to shed light on issues brought up by at least one City Council Member. These are the two recitals which appear in separate places in Ordinance 2024-02-006:

1. “WHEREAS, IAB board members are required by City policy and State law to participate in periodic training on the Public Records and Open Public Meetings Acts. An attempt to provide this training to the IAB in December 2022 was unsuccessful;” 
2. “WHEREAS, the IAB has created multiple subcommittees, including the Federal Contacts Data Subcommittee, Immigrant Resource Center Subcommittee, Outreach Subcommittee, and Process Subcommittee, which meet without City staff;”

Regarding the information in the first recital I listed which I believe to be untrue, in a document I received through a records request, Bellingham City Attorney Alan Marriner had sent out an Open Government Training Requirement Compliance – Reminder on November 23, 2021. In the reminder – which was sent to a number of City staff members including the Council Office Manager and Legislative Assistant at that time who was assisting the IAB – the City Attorney presented a table detailing which government Boards/Commissions/Officials were required to participate in which particular types of Open Government Trainings Act trainings. 

It was indicated in the table that the Immigration Advisory Board was required to receive training in the Open Public Meetings Act. However, it was also indicated that the Immigration Advisory Board wasn’t required to receive training in the Public Records Act. 

There were three government categories of officials listed in the table who were indicated as being required to receive training in the Public Records Act, and these were the City Council, the Mayor’s Office, along with the Public Records Officer and Designated Records Management Officer. Additionally, I reviewed the PRA Lesson 2 training recording on the Washington State Attorney General’s website, and the material was geared toward government officials who would be involved in initiating, carrying out, and monitoring the processes for providing public records to community members. 

The Washington State Attorney General’s model rules for compliance with the public records act shows a date of March 02, 2018, and indicates, according to WAC 44-14-0000, training is required for “local elected officials, statewide elected officials, persons appointed to fill vacancies in a local or statewide office, and public records officers.” Even where that section of the WAC states that “All agency employees should receive basic training on public records compliance and records retention,” it does not say they are required to take the training. Meanwhile, members of the Immigration Advisory Board aren’t employees of the City of Bellingham.

If there have been no changes in the requirements of the Public Records Act as related to the Immigration Advisory Board since November of 2021, I call for Council Members to amend Ordinance 2024-02-006 to remove the incorrect information that IAB board members are required by City policy and State law to participate in periodic training on the Public Records Act. 

If there have been changes in the requirements, I request to be shown a copy of those changes, and of communications where the IAB has been informed of those changes.

Additionally, during the January 2, 2024 Bellingham City Council reorganization meeting, there had been some remarks from one of the Council Members related to these two recitals, which were ultimately reported in Cascadia Daily News. I wanted to make sure that you all had some clarifying information and context related to them.
  
First, I know that the Immigration Advisory Board had provided some context of their own regarding the recital mentioning the Open Public Meetings Act that I am highlighting in this email. They did this at their last meeting, two months ago in January of this year.  Some of that information and context was provided in their Proposed ordinance with changes suggested by Board Members which was handed out during the meeting, and also in discussion during that January 16, 2024 IAB meeting (at around 01:13:30 in the meeting recording to which I have linked). 

In particular, details about the December 13, 2022 IAB meeting were provided, where City Attorney Alan Marriner had attended that meeting with the purpose of providing training on the Open Public Meetings Act. The discussion that took place during that December 13, 2022 meeting about the training video Mr. Marriner had brought with him to use for the Open Public Meetings Act training starts at about 00:08:05 in the meeting recording. 

It was fairly quickly recognized by Mr. Marriner that because of the need for consecutive interpretation of the English-speaking video for Spanish-speaking IAB members, it would likely result in the process of the training taking several hours. He indicated he would like to regroup and give the issue of OPMA training in Spanish more thought and that he wouldn’t be able to provide the training that night. However, he did take the suggestion of the Legislative Assistant to engage in a Q&A discussion that evening about the Open Public Meetings Act. 

The minutes of the meeting seem to accurately reflect the ultimate decision that was made about the future training, where both Mr. Marriner and members of the IAB agreed that he would work with City staff to come up with a way to provide OPMA training that would be appropriate for Spanish-speaking IAB members for a future date. There is no sign in future IAB meeting minutes that Mr. Marriner returned to provide training.

Also during the Q&A section of the discussion that night, members of the IAB actively participated in asking questions and clarifying details about different facets of the Open Public Meetings Act and Mr. Marriner provided helpful answers and guidance. There were questions asked surrounding the issue of what would be considered a quorum of IAB members. This was asked in the context that the number of active IAB members fluctuated, so the majority number for the board would shift when there were either more or less members. 

Mr. Marriner was not sure of a final answer he could give that night, since he was most familiar with situations where that number would be found in Bellingham Municipal Code applicable to their board. IAB members said their previous Council liaison had referenced that Municipal Code indicated their quorum was half of their existing members at any given time, plus one.

This discussion of quorum is relevant to the second recital I am highlighting in this email, related to the following Council Member remarks at the January 2, 2024 City Council discussion about the ordinance to suspend Immigration Advisory Board meetings: 

“But I think we’re going to need to do a reset and a little bit more guidance because some of the things like forming subcommittees and then not meeting publicly in those, those are things that do not happen under open meetings act.”

In Cascadia Daily News, the commentary was reported in this way: “Council member Lisa Anderson mentioned that meetings of board subcommittees violated the state’s Open Public Meetings Act.”   

Since that time I have watched a couple different versions of OPMA training, one from the Washington State Attorney General’s website and one from the Association of Washington Cities. I am attaching relevant slides from the trainings, of which I took screenshots.

It appears from applicable information in these slides that it is only when a quorum of members of an advisory body comes together to discuss or transact business that it is considered to be conducting a meeting, with the caveat that they are not taking public comment. 

Regarding the latter stipulation, IAB subcommittees do not take public comment. Additionally, it was apparent from IAB email records that board members would get advisement, as in an email I am attaching from the Council Legislative Assistant in September of 2023, of what number of IAB members was considered non-quorum during a particular timing. In the case of this email it was said: “Since this event is directly related to the work of the IAB, we should limit IAB attendance at this event to less than a quorum in order to remain in compliance with the OPMA. Up to four IAB members may attend. I’m happy to keep track, just let me know if you plan to attend.”

During that same timing of September of 2023, the September IAB meeting agenda lists the names of the IAB subcommittee members at that time. None of the subcommittees contained over 4 members. 

And I want to point out, as was the case in the December 2022 IAB meeting and again recently when the issue of Open Public Meetings Act requirements were brought up by the IAB suspension ordinance recitals, IAB members have taken effort and have expressed a desire to operate in compliance with the OPMA. 

In the same reminder that Alan Marriner had sent out showing which kinds of Open Government Trainings the IAB was required to take, it also indicated that it is the City Council Office that is responsible for keeping record of the training. 

In the last few months of 2022, leading up to that timing of the December 2022 meeting, there were two significant transitions that took place. One was that in September 2022, Council Member Kristina Martens unexpectedly took over as Council liaison to the IAB, a role previously filled by Council Member Hannah Stone. The other transition was between the former Council Legislative Assistant/Office Manager and a new one that would be filling the function of attending IAB meetings and helping the IAB in numerous areas. The December IAB meeting was the last one to occur before the legislative assistant who had been aiding the IAB since February 2021 was gone. 

These changes and the associated change in historical IAB knowledge can perhaps be a reason that some of the OPMA oversight was disrupted. I have seen a number of records showing that an IAB process subcommittee member was sending out reminders about OPMA training in 2023. I have attached a copy of one of them.

Also, I have corresponded with the current Council Legislative Assistant/Office Manager. While she was not completely clear on which existing members had and had not taken and turned in certification on OPMA training (particularly those who had taken the training before she took her position assisting the IAB), she had been following up on at least two of the certifications, and was aware that one was turned in, and that in the other case, training was taken but certification had not been turned in by the time of the January 2024 IAB meeting.

I believe it is important for Council Members to gain a full understanding of issues surrounding the implications of the IAB suspension ordinance recitals, so that you will be communicating with IAB members without undue bias toward them. Moreover, it is also important to publicly acknowledge and dispell any misunderstandings brought on by any untrue statements in the recitals and by government officials not speaking up earlier to stop inaccurate perceptions from developing in their tracks. 

I understand, in situations where errors have been made by multiple participating agencies/communities in a given situation, that all parties making repeated allegations against each other can potentially derail or delay forward movement. 

However, I also feel in situations where marginalized communities have been unjustly portrayed, failing to promptly, actively acknowledge and effectively rectify the specific ways we contribute to this injustice compounds decades of trauma caused by aspersions being continually cast upon groups and individuals who must fight for their rights in order to avoid the worst forms of oppression and mistreatment. It is, therefore, more damaging to keep silent about our harmful actions towards those who we have made vulnerable, than it is beneficial to be focussing exclusively on the attempt to distance ourselves from those harmful actions. 

The adjudication process that is taking place now related to determining senior water rights in Washington State is just one of the examples of accountability being required at some point when it is not voluntarily offered and cultivated by those with a disproportionate share of power. It’s important we remain committed to eliminating that power imbalance, and this requires our acknowledgement and action to right our wrongs.

Sincerely,
Dena Jensen
Birch Bay, WA

Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 at 04:48:08 PM PDT

---

Subject: Re: Additional action required, plus context for 2 other recitals from the ordinance passed to suspend the Immigration Advisory Board

Dear Bellingham City Council: 

I was made aware by one City official that the email I sent this morning (included below) possibly did not make some things clear to folks who would be reading it.  I will continue to try to improve upon my communicating in future emails. 

Here are elements of my message I want to make more clear:

1.  The particular claim in the IAB suspension ordinance recital that IAB board members are required by State law to participate in Public Records Act training is untrue unless there have been changes in the law that I was not able to locate. If this is a case, I am calling for the applicable ordinance to be amended with correct information. As in my email I sent this morning, I would request the source of any change in State law be provided to me, along with a copy of any communications that were sent to the IAB alerting them to the change. 

2. In my email this morning, I sent a copy and link to the reminder memo Bellingham’s City Attorney sent to City staff members responsible for ensuring compliance with Open Government Training Act training. This reminder was sent on November 23, 2021 to remind these staff members if they had newly appointed board/commission members or newly elected officials to ensure they receive the appropriate training. In that reminder memo Mr. Marriner had provided a table which indicated that where the Immigration Advisory Board was “Required” to receive Open Public Meetings Act training, they were “Not Required” to receive Public Records Act training. To me, it would therefore seem that City policy at that time was that the IAB did not have to participate in this training. If this is the case, I am calling for the applicable ordinance to be amended with correct information. Again, if City Policy has changed since that time, I request to be provided with the source reflecting that change, as well as communications to City staff and/or the IAB that this change in City policy had occurred. 

3. Regarding City Attorney Alan Marriner attending an Immigration Advisory Board meeting to provide Open Public Meetings Act training, the date of that meeting was December 13, 2022. I will again provide a link to the meeting recording and minutes here. I’ll provide some notes about what transpired in the meeting regarding the training below. What is apparent though, is that everyone involved in the discussion was working to find a way that the training could be provided, either for that night or in the future. IAB members were agreeable to a couple ways it could have occurred that evening, however these were not workable for Mr. Marriner’s schedule for that evening. He stayed for Q&A though, was agreeable to coming up with a solution for a training in the future, and he and IAB members were agreeable to him working with staff and the Council Liaison to the IAB to do that.

****

December 13, 2022 IAB meeting OPMA training discussion notes:

It had been established in the meeting after everyone introduced themselves that consecutive interpretation was the mode of translation that was going to be workable for that evening, since interpretation was needed for both Zoom and live attendees. 

Right after that had happened, Mr. Marriner made note that the training video he had brought with him to use for Open Public Meetings Act training that night moved pretty quickly. 

An IAB member then asked if Mr. Marriner had a Spanish version he could show. Mr. Marriner responded that he didn’t, and that it was a video put out by the Association of Washington Cities which he briefly described. 

An IAB member noted that it was primary Spanish speakers who needed the training. Mr. Marriner said now that he knew this he would give it more thought. An IAB member asked how long the video would take. Mr. Marriner said about 40 minutes and described it a little further.

At this point the interpreter pointed out that the process would be that after pieces of information are provided in English, everyone would then stop and wait for her to provide that piece of information in Spanish. 

After the interpreter said this, Mr. Marriner said he would like to regroup and give this more thought, and where he doubted there was a video in languages other than English because they were made for elected officials, it was his perception they would be there for several hours that night under the circumstances of needing to use consecutive interpretation. 

Mr. Marriner indicated he felt he could probably present an abbreviated version of the training and that he thought that would work better, but he wouldn’t be able to do that at the meeting that night.  

The interpreter noted to IAB members, as someone having been providing interpretation services for 35 years, that for her alone to provide effective interpretation it needed to be either for Zoom attendees or those attending in person for it to be workable.

An IAB member suggested that they could move the training to the end of the meeting, so that community members who were attending via Zoom and not needing the training could log off, leaving the interpreter to only need to interpret the training to the IAB members who needed training who were in person. 

Mr. Marriner clarified he had other commitments and still could not provide the training that night. He said he was willing to make things work and wanted to accomodate IAB members who were Spanish-speaking. An IAB member suggested there may be resources that are in Spanish. 

Mr. Marriner indicated he just had not been aware of the situation. The Council Legislative Assistant apologized that she had not made Mr. Marriner aware of the need for providing the training in Spanish. 

Another IAB member made a suggestion – for the future – of using software that could generate subtitles.There was a Q&A session that Mr. Marriner participated in after this and IAB members asked questions about the Open Public Meetings Act as well as about 

the Public Records Act. It was apparent that IAB members were very interested in gaining an understanding of what they were allowed and not allowed to do under both laws. (Incidentally, during the focus on numerous Public Records Act questions and answers, Mr. Marriner did not make any reference to IAB members being required to take that training.) 

At the end of the Q&A an IAB member summed up that the proposal for future training was to have Mr. Marriner work with City staff to arrange for the training, made another suggestion of using earpieces for translation as a way to make it easier to provide the training, and expressed they were appreciative of Mr. Marriner’s willingness to brainstorm. 

Mr. Marriner noted that the current Legislative Assistant would be leaving and so he would be working with the new Legislative Assistant who was also inattendance at the IAB meeting that night, along with Council Member Martens to figure it all out, after which IAB members thanked Mr. Marriner for coming. 

******
If anyone has further input or questions about this email or the one I wrote earlier today, please let me know.

Sincerely,
Dena Jensen
Birch Bay, WA

---

The emails above were sent to the following addresses:

To: ccmail@cob.org <ccmail@cob.org>; Daniel C. Hammill <dchammill@cob.org>; Jace A. Cotton <jacotton@cob.org>; Hannah E. Stone <hestone@cob.org>; ehwilliams@cob.org <ehwilliams@cob.org>; Michael W. Lilliquist <mlilliquist@cob.org>; Hollie Huthman <hahuthman@cob.org>; Lisa A. Anderson <laanderson@cob.org>

Copies were sent to: mayorsoffice@cob.org <mayorsoffice@cob.org>; Alan A. Marriner <amarriner@cob.org>; Janice L. Keller <jkeller@cob.org>; Jackie A. Lassiter <jalassiter@cob.org>; Satpal Sidhu <ssidhu@co.whatcom.wa.us>; council@co.whatcom.wa.us <council@co.whatcom.wa.us>; phab@co.whatcom.wa.us <phab@co.whatcom.wa.us>; Health <health@co.whatcom.wa.us>; G. CC. Immigration Board <immigrationboard@cob.org>; WREC <wrec@chuckanuthealthfoundation.org>; Cascadia Daily News <ronjudd@cascadiadaily.com>