SOUTH BEND — “No wrongdoing” is the opinion from attorneys who looked into allegations from a group that alleged the Pacific County Commission violated the Washington Open Public Meetings Act on Dec. 26, 2024.

The meeting in question regarded the separation of the Pacific County Jail Services from the Pacific County Sheriff’s Office, which was approved via a 3-0 vote after hours of public comments.

A group of county residents, including members of the far-right John Birch Society, sent a letter via email and direct mail to the commission dated Jan. 4 and addressed the letter during a commission meeting on Jan. 14.

“We are an informal, bi-partisan group of Pacific County citizens who believe that you have violated state law and, consequently, your oaths of office,” the letter states. “We seek a reversal of the actions taken by you on December 26, 2024, about the creation of the Pacific County Jail Services together with the associated actions that affect the employment of those involved in the criminal justice system.”

According to the letter, the group believes the commissioners misused the legislative declaration, improperly used executive session, conducted secret voting, and combined to warrant an injunction to stop the jails’ separation.

County commissioners released a statement on Feb. 5 advising that legal counsel has assessed the concerns outlined in the group’s letter and found no wrongdoing or violations.

“The Board of County Commissioners requested legal advice from an outside law firm to review the process by which Resolution No. 2024-056 was adopted on Dec. 26, 2024,” the BOCC statements reads.

“The firm conducted an extensive review of all matters related to the adoption of the resolution, including the meeting minutes, agendas, digital records of the meeting, and the audio recording of the meeting,” the statement adds.

The attorneys found that the concerns of the group were not valid.

“The firm determined that the regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners on December 26, 2024, was conducted in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act and other applicable laws and regulations,” the statement reads.

“The firm further determined that executive sessions held by the Board with legal counsel were appropriate under RCW 42.20.110(1)(i) and in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act,” the statement added.

The letter also adds, “Additionally, the firm did not find any negligence or wrongdoing by the Board regarding this matter.”

Aberdeen-based Ingram Zelasko & Goodwin LLP was the legal counsel consulted and tasked with reviewing the matter.

Washington state law exempts attorney-client correspondence, which means the official findings are spared from public disclosure.