PORT ANGELES — Who blinked?
Clallam County commissioners last week voided a pair of warrants for $1.3 million in grants to port and city governments after Treasurer Selinda Barkhuis had rejected them for what she believed to be an insufficient public process.
Citing a desire to avert a costly and time-consuming legal battle — and to stop interest from accruing against the county — the three commissioners decided to rip up the disputed checks and start over with a more thorough public review.
“We had a disagreement on the proper process,” Commissioner Mike Chapman said Friday.
“Nobody blinked. I think in retrospect, we decided that what she has asked for is not unreasonable.”
Barkhuis did not respond to numerous phone calls and emails last week. She could not be found at her office Thursday or Friday.
A dispute began in May when commissioners agreed to tap into the Opportunity Fund to award a $1 million grant to the Port of Port Angeles to renovate a building for the port’s Composite Recycling Technology Center and a $285,952 grant to the city of Port Angeles for the second phase of its ambitious waterfront face-lift.
While the grants were approved in a public meeting, there were no formal hearings or signed contracts with the port and city.
Barkhuis, a licensed attorney, said she would reject the warrants absent an order from Clallam County Superior Court.
“In my opinion, county commissioners do not have the authority to ‘authorize’ and ‘wish’ away their own compliance with provisions in state law and county policy that entitle county taxpayers to public hearings and written contracts,” Barkhuis wrote in a May 28 email to county officials calling for a judicial review.
“As such, as the duly elected county treasurer acting on behalf of the Clallam County taxpayers, I will withhold the funds for these grants until the Clallam County Superior Court has determined whether these funds are being disbursed according to law.”
Barkhuis made good on her promise to reject the warrants for the infrastructure grants when they were presented by County Auditor Shoona Riggs in mid-June.
The commissioners and their legal adviser, county Prosecuting Attorney Mark Nichols, said the board had a legal right to make the allocations because the funds were already in the budget.
“While a public hearing may be desired by many, it is not required in [this] case,” Nichols wrote in a 16-page legal memorandum that supported the board’s action.
Nichols concluded in his memo that the treasurer had a legal duty to disburse the funds.
Barkhuis had argued that the money for the grants had been set aside for the Carlsborg sewer project in this year’s budget.
Since that project was delayed, the county “should be able to put these monies to their highest and best use,” Nichols wrote in his June 17 memo.
“The conclusions reached in the memo still stand,” Nichols said Friday.
Board Chairman Jim McEntire maintained Friday that commissioners handled the grants “by the book.”
“I think we had a full and open process last time,” he said.
“The public is going to have another chance to watch our process.
“We’re going to take another swing at it and see what happens.”
The Opportunity Fund Board is scheduled to meet Thursday to reconsider the grants to the port and city.
The advisory board makes recommendations for uses of a tax-supported fund for rural infrastructure projects.
“My guess is they will still find favor with these projects, but we don’t know for sure,” Chapman said.
If and when the Opportunity Fund Board blesses the grants, commissioners are expected to call for a public hearing to consider approving them for a second time.
“We’ll be following the process exactly as the treasurer asked us to,” Chapman said.
“I don’t see how it could be a problem.”
Port and city officials have said a delay in the grants would not compromise their respective projects.
McEntire said his overarching interest in voiding the warrants was to “stop the interest rate clock.”
Officials have said the county was accruing about $430 in owed interest per day.
Chapman said he was pleased that the board “decided to follow the process to avoid potential litigation.”
“Nobody is going to win in that scenario,” he said.
He added: “You cannot predict how the court will rule.”
Commissioner Bill Peach could not be reached for comment Friday.
Barkhuis did not attend a June 8 closed-door meeting of top county officials to discuss lingering questions, issues and concerns about the grants.
After Nichols issued his memorandum, Barkhuis said she would seek intervention from the state attorney general.
Lana Weinmann, chief criminal prosecutor for the Attorney General’s Office, said her office had no authority to take action, according to an email provided by Nichols.
In a footnote to his memo, Nichols credited Barkhuis for her interest in transparency, describing her as an “ardent champion of the right of taxpayers to participate in the budget process.”
“While I strongly believe that public discussion of such issues is healthy and in fact necessary to a democratic society, I am becoming increasingly concerned that the present dispute has escalated to the point of interfering with county business,” Nichols wrote in a follow-up letter to Barkhuis.
“I am further concerned that the methods you have chosen to advance your arguments may expose you to personal liability.”
Barkhuis was elected treasurer in 2010 and ran unopposed last year. She also serves on the county Charter Review Commission.
“We’re all elected by the same electorate,” Chapman said.
“We all represent the same constituency.”
Chapman, who has announced that he would not seek a fifth term next year, said no elected official has authority over another.
Forcing Barkhuis to release the warrants, Chapman said, would cost taxpayers and “wouldn’t be good government.”
“There’s an inability to communicate right now, and that’s kind of frustrating,” he added.
“You’re on one team, and the team has to work together.”
________
Reporter Rob Ollikainen can be reached at 360-452-2345, ext. 5072, or at rollikainen@peninsuladailynews.com.
