HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 1770

BYRepresentatives Haugen, S. Wilson, Fuhrman, Fraser, Jones and Spanel

Revising provisions on the appointment of ecological commission members.

House Committe on State Government

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (7)

      Signed by Representatives Todd, Chair; Anderson, Vice Chair; McLean, Ranking Republican Member; R. Fisher, Hankins, Morris and Silver.

House Staff:Barbara McLain (786-7135)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON STATE GOVERNMENT

FEBRUARY 1, 1990

BACKGROUND:

Ecological Commission.  The Ecological Commission was created in 1971 to provide advice and guidance to the director of the Department of Ecology.  The governor appoints the seven members of the commission to four-year staggered terms.  The commission advises the director on the following matters:

            (1)Positions to be taken by the department on behalf of the state before interstate or federal bodies;

            (2)Any comprehensive environmental quality plan, program or policy proposed for adoption by the department;

            (3)Procedures for financial assistance grants to be given to local governments to improve environmental quality;

            (4)Procedures for considering applications for and granting variances; and

            (5)Any departmental request legislation.

The Ecological Commission also has veto authority.  If, within 30 days, five members of the commission notify the director in writing of their disapproval of a proposed rule or regulation, the rule or regulation is not adopted.

Appearance of Fairness Doctrine.  The court has outlined standards of behavior for judicial proceedings so that the proceedings are fair in appearance as well as in fact.  Statute mandates that these standards also apply to local land use decisions of a quasi-judicial nature.  One standard prohibits ex- parte communication between the decision-making body and the parties to the proceedings without some form of public notification that communication has taken place.

SUMMARY:

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  Except for communications with the director of the Department of Ecology, no member of the Ecological Commission may participate in any ex parte communication with any person proposing action to be taken by the commission.

The commission and the director of the Department of Ecology must establish rules of procedure to govern the conduct of the commission's duties.  The commission will submit a summary of the rules to the House State Government committee and the Senate Governmental Operations committee by December 1, 1990.

SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  The substitute removed the following features: (a) approval of members' appointments by the Senate; (b) conduct of meetings in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act; (c) considerations by the commission of local government actions on matters of environmental management to conform with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine; and (d) local government master programs under the Shoreline Management Act not subject to review by the commission.  The substitute added: (a) prohibitions against ex parte communication by members of the commission with any person proposing action to be taken by the commission; and (b) submission to legislative standing committees of a summary of the rules of procedure adopted by the commission.

Fiscal Note:      Not Requested.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    (Original bill)  Representative Mary Margaret Haugen, prime sponsor; Randy Scott, Association of Washington Counties; and Kathleen Collins, Association of Washington Cities.

House Committee - Testified Against:      (Original bill)  Anne Eaguard, Ecological Commission; and Betty Tabbut, Washington Environmental Council.

House Committee - Testimony For:    (Original bill)  The Ecological Commission should be accountable and act like a state agency, conforming to open public meetings, voting in public, etc.  They act as a quasi-judicial body when reviewing shoreline master plans and should therefore conform to the appearance of fairness doctrine.  An attorney general's opinion has been requested on the commission's authority to be involved in what is substantially a local government decision -- master plan amendments. The commission was asked to develop standards of procedure and has not.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      (Original bill)  The commission has developed standards of procedure and conforms to requirements of public meetings.  It has revised its procedure to vote in public if sufficient information is available for a conscientious vote.  The commission is not an adjudicatory body and therefore the appearance of fairness doctrine is not applicable.  It is in the public interest to have the commission review shoreline master plans; they are state plans, not just local plans.  The commission is intended to be an independent oversight body and its independence should be maintained.