LONGVIEW — For more than four months, the City of Woodland has held mostly in-person council meetings and allowed councilmembers and citizens to attend without face coverings, counter to the pandemic orders of Gov. Jay Inslee.
The state has received several complaints from citizens and city staff about the continued flouting of state anti-virus orders.
The Woodland City Council has held mostly in-person meetings since June 1, after voting unanimously to do so on May 20 “regardless of Gov. (Jay) Inslee’s stay-at-home order.”
Mayor Will Finn said he has told the council of the complaints, but said members have declined to return to fully virtual meetings. Finn is a candidate for Cowlitz County commissioner.
Councilmember Benjamin Fredricks said in an email he couldn’t comment on the council’s decision and the complaints because “this may become a legal matter for the city.”
Inslee’s stay-at-home order, first issued in March, prohibited any public agencies subject to the Open Public Meetings Act from conducting a public meeting unless it is not in-person and instead provides options for the public to attend via telephone or other remote access and allows all attending to hear each other at the same time.
The meetings could resume in Phase 3 of the governor’s reopening plan, as long as they followed requirements including limiting the number of attendees, mandatory face coverings and physical distancing.
Cowlitz County has been in Phase 2 since May 23. The state paused all counties from moving forward in the phased reopening plan in July, and it’s unclear if or when the state will accept applications to move forward again.
As of last week, the state Emergency Operations Center said it had received at least three complaints against the city related to COVID-19 restrictions. Complaints made on Aug. 17 and Sept. 25 report people not wearing masks during city council meetings, according to a document sent to the Washington State Association of Counties.
The Aug. 17 complaint said three of six council members and three of nine audience members were not wearing masks at that day’s meeting, according to the document. The Sept. 25 complaint said the city council was holding meetings with the public and not everyone was wearing masks.
The council’s Aug. 17 meeting wasn’t recorded as usual to show the council chambers because of a technical problem with the video system, said Clerk-Treasurer Mari Ripp.
However, video of the Aug. 3 meeting shows multiple councilmembers not wearing face masks for at least several minutes during the meeting while sitting closer than 6 feet apart, as well as audience members taking off their masks while speaking at the podium.
No citizens appear on the Oct. 5 meeting video, which shows councilmembers not wearing masks or with masks pulled down below their noses and mouths.
Following the Aug. 17 complaint, Finn said he told the council and encouraged them to return to virtual meetings but they declined.
Finn said he’s directed city staff to attend the meetings remotely. The public can attend the meetings virtually or in person, and the city posted signs at the entrance asking people to wear masks and listing other safe practices, Finn said.
Masks are available for those who need them, as well as hand sanitizer, he said. Audience seats are limited and spaced out, but the council is seated closer than six feet apart.
At its first in-person meeting, the council spread out between two tables, Finn said, but later chose to sit together at one table. Finn said he asked if they wanted to place plexiglass barriers between each councilmember’s seat but that hasn’t been decided.
Councilmembers and members of the public are asked to “self-assess for symptoms” and stay home if sick, Finn said.
Finn said people “can’t jump to conclusions when they see someone not wearing a mask” because they may be doing so for a medical reason, which may be exempt under the state order.
“Our whole stance in Woodland has been to inform and educate,” he said.
In an email obtained by TDN, Frank Andrus, co-director of claims/litigation for Cities Insurance Association of Washington, said he couldn’t formally determine if the city’s insurance would cover it if someone claimed COVID-19 exposure at an in-person council meeting until seeing an actual claim or lawsuit.
“That being said, my initial review of the information concludes that by not following the governor’s order which prohibits in-person meetings, the City of Woodland is compromising its coverage,” Andrus wrote in the email.
The city’s coverage does not apply to any liability “arising from the deliberate violation of any federal, state, or local statute, ordinance, rule, or regulation committed by or with the knowledge of a covered party,” the email said.
Cities Insurance Association of Washington recommended the city follow the governor’s proclamations to help eliminate potential liability by not following the restrictions, according to the email.
Finn said City officials and staff have discussed the liability of in-person meetings but that it would be difficult to prove where someone contracted the disease. Finn said on his end he is promoting safe practices to help prevent COVID-19 transmission and liability.
Two complaints have been filed regarding the city’s plan to close its public works office and consolidate to one building.
The complaint to the state Department of Labor and Industries outlined concerns of moving employees closer together during the pandemic, according to a Aug. 10 letter from the department to the city.
A similar complaint to the Emergency Operations Center said the change would crowd workspaces together and not allow for proper distancing.
The city’s response to L&I outlined its COVID-19 safety precautions, including allowing employees to work from home, training, masking rules, sneeze guards and other measures.
Finn said a number of city employees are working from home, and while he understands health and safety concerns, he’s comfortable with the precautions the city is taking.
“Some folks are not happy about it,” Finn said Tuesday of the consolidation. “That’s OK. But it’s our responsibility to do what’s appropriate with resources from the taxpayer.”
Tim Church, L&I spokesman, said the department has taken not formal action against the city other than sending the letter and receiving the city’s response.
It’s a bit more unclear what will come of the complaints made through the Emergency Operations Center.
Mike Faulk, governor’s office spokesperson, said the Aug. 17 complaint was assigned to L&I and they are investigating.
Debby Abe, L&I spokesperson, said the complaint was received by the Emergency Operations Center and forwarded to the Washington State Association of Counties.
The association received the information but did not follow up on the complaint because it was about a city, said Mellani McAleenan, director of government relations and general counsel. McAleenan said the association recently started receiving information about complaints from the governor’s office but doesn’t have authority for ensuring compliance and has not determined the best way to share what it receives.
