State of the County was an Open Meetings Act Complaint Waiting to Happen (Opinion)

As covered earlier today, an Open Meetings Act complaint was filed against the County Commissioners for the State of the County event being a closed-door ticketed event. Personally, I’ve always been a little off-put by this event requiring payment to attend, but have not filed an Open Meetings Act complaint myself because in my opinion it’s such a gray area (plus honestly I have zero desire to sit through such a presentation at 6:30 in the morning). However, this year’s State of the County might have accidentally crossed the line into the red.

Washington County Chamber of Commerce has held the State of the County event for many years, and typically it’s hosted early in the morning as a ticketed event, including breakfast. The event is held on private property, with this year being held at Meritus and last year being held at Fountain Rock Country Club. Typically, the entire event is a presentation of all of the County’s accomplishments over the past year, and is normally just a rehash of everything that took place over the year, mixed with some feel-good marketing for how good we’re doing, and that there’s blue skies ahead.

Last year, the State of the County materials appear to have been posted on the County website a day before the event, according to the metadata of the page which has a timestamp of 2024-02-05T20:23:16+00:00, and a YouTube video of the presentation being provided on the same day as the event.

However, this year’s 2025 State of the County was not made available online prior to the event, meaning that this was brand new information being presented to the public. And while there was a YouTube live stream of the event made available on the County’s YouTube page, the fact that this event would be live streamed at no cost was not relayed in advance to those who received advertisements for the ticketed event. But, the event was advertised in the County’s open session agenda. If the event was included as part of the county’s open session agenda, then any reasonable resident would believe that the event was part of the open session.

It’s still a gray area if this was in fact an open meetings act violation, and I honestly feel sorry for the OMA compliance board for the complicated case involving this complaint. If you go by simply the official communications from Washington County Government in the form of the agenda, you’re going to be rather upset if you show up to the event location listed in the open session and be informed that you have to pay to attend.

I’m not sure what’s worse, secret “open meetings” where only select press are invited such as the, or “open meetings” which residents must pay to attend, such as this one.

On a related note, it would not have been unreasonable to file an Open Meetings Act complaint regarding the August 12, 2024 public safety meeting for failing to advertise the meeting or allow the public to attend. The only reason I did not is because elected officials promised to take corrective action for future meetings. But in this case, the County was informed well in advance that the State of the County event is a legal gray area, and that denying the public access without payment was going to open themselves up to an OMA complaint.

It’s also important to note that the event is actually hosted by Chamber of Commerce, including sponsor placement. However, the entire event is based upon content developed by Washington County Government using taxpayer dollars, not made available to any member of the public prior to the event. We have a non-government entity profiting from county tax dollars using content which was essentially exclusively licensed to them for a limited amount of time. I have some concerns that taxpayer dollars are being used in this manner, but I also cannot point to any specific law this actually violates.

The obvious solution to this would be for the county to hold their own State of the County event at the county administrative building. This would need to be an open event for anyone to attend. The county could then solicit sponsors just like the Chamber does now to provide catering.

Of course, let’s not ignore the White Claw drinking elephant in the room – Mr. Shaun Porter. He has a serious bone of contention with local elected officials, and is being quite vocal about it, including basically protesting every County Commissioner meeting with his signs and speech. And while many disregard his antics as baseless attacks or simply attention seeking, make no mistake that he is accomplishing the goals he’s setting out to do – draw attention to Washington County’s elected officials. Several of the officials Mr. Porter targeted at the school board in fact lost to political newcomers, so any county elected official who wants to keep their seat in 2026 would do well to pay attention. And while having Mr. Porter in the room with one of his signs would have likely been uncomfortable at the State of the County, not allowing him access has likely drawn much more attention to his antics than had they simply allowed him to stand in the back of the room with his sign.

So before closing, I’ll leave you with the following question. Should residents need to pay a fee to access an in-person presentation on our current county’s status? Regardless the answer, I look forward to seeing the OMA compliance board’s response to this complaint, as it has the potential to alter the trajectory of all future State of the County meetings. And as always, I will continue to push for greater transparency from our elected officials and local governments.

Opinion article by Ken Buckler, President of RFHC. All opinions are his own, and do not reflect those of our clients or sponsors.

---