Thurston County’s Salary Commission in limbo over state law conflict 

The Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) grappled to reconcile two incompatible appointment requirements during an agenda setting meeting on Tuesday, May 6. 

At issue was the board's need to amend its current Salary Commission ordinance to comply with a revised state statute that no longer recognizes categorical seat designations, such as labor, legal, or business, unless they are related fields explicitly connected to personnel management.  

The discrepancy has now rendered the commission ineligible to meet until realigned with state code. 

The amended statute, codified as RCW 36.17.024, mandates that members of county salary commissions must be residents, qualified voters, and possess experience in “personnel management or a related field.” It omits any reference to professional sector-based appointments. 

As a result, Thurston County’s practice of assigning one seat each to labor, legal, business, and human resources no longer meets statutory criteria. 

Flexibility in appointments 

In order to reconcile the representational goals of the county with statutory compliance, BoCC Chair Tye Menser proposed a revised commission structure that would reserve one seat for labor while treating the other three as “flexible,” with eligibility defined by documented experience in personnel management or equivalent. 

He said the structure addressed prior concerns about excluding labor, overloading the commission with one category, and the board’s stated need for flexibility in making appointments. 

“My proposal, rather than having four seats that could go to any of those four fields, my idea was to have one of those seats (as a) dedicated labor seat, and then have the other three seats be flexible amongst human resources, business and legal,” he said. 

Commissioner Wayne Fournier endorsed the proposed revision to the Salary Commission adjustment and reiterated the goal of “hitting all those categories” if possible, referring to labor, legal, business, and human resources. 

He called for continued inclusion of the traditional appointment sectors and favored “flexibility” on assignment for the rest, noting adherence to sectoral intent should remain part of the selection process. 

RCW language 

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Jane Futterman then flagged the proposal’s legal fragility. She warned that professional affiliation with law or business cannot substitute for hands-on experience in managing employees or administering workplace policy. 

“So, the issue is, are you intending that you find individuals that have experience in the field of personnel management and are business representative? What did you say? HR (human resources), professional or legal representative?” she asked.

“Or are you making a determination that these are related fields, and therefore the person does not have to have experience in the field of personnel management?” 

She noted statutory requirements for personnel experience have always existed, but the statute now removes any presumption of eligibility based on a professional label.  

“They’ve always been requirements but under the current statute, the requirements are to have experience in the field of personnel management or a related field,” she said. 

Futterman said the board must now either legally define which professions qualify as related fields or remove all occupational references from the ordinance and rely entirely on individual qualifications. 

Commissioner Rachel Grant asked whether the ordinance was now more restrictive than the law, and wondered if the board, by holding onto sector-specific language, was “putting constraints on it” in a way that state law no longer justifies. 

Futterman confirmed the county’s ordinance was written under the previous version of the statute and is now out of compliance. 

She added, “because we’re past the deadline to comply with that statute, so they’re not going to be able to meet unless we change the code and be consistent with the state law." 

Futterman said the board can either revise the ordinance to match the statute or keep categories and determine which professions qualify as related fields. Removing categories would allow the board to assess applicants based on individual experience without assigning seats to specific sectors. 

“If you leave the code to be limited to what the state law says … when appointing members, you can always make a determination of which skills you want, which experience you want,” she said. 

Commission still frozen 

County Manager Leonard Hernandez acknowledged that much of the confusion came from assumptions inherited from the previous version of the law.

He then said the updated statute was designed to expand eligibility, not complicate the process. 

“I think we (are) maybe over complicating the chain,” Hernandez said. “That’s really the question that we’re asking. Is that appropriate?” 

He advised the board to temporarily suspend amendment efforts, and instructed staff and county officials, including Futterman and HR Director Maria Aponte, to reassess and draft a revised ordinance that harmonizes with the new statutory requirements. The board then agreed to revisit the matter following staff review. 

The debate also reflected institutional caution, mindful of how the adjustments might be construed outside the statutory context. 

Fournier said the intent behind the proposed revision was procedural, not exclusionary. 

“Then some folks took that as us trying to take a step to limit certain voices … when in fact, we were just trying to adopt new state law and open it up to a wider variety of people,” he said. 

Menser reiterated that the board wants to preserve labor representation without restricting “flexibility” or limiting the board’s ability to appoint from other qualifying fields.  

“I wanted to have the labor voice prioritized, but yet keep the flexibility so we can keep the Salary Commission fill, which has been a perennial problem,” he clarified. 

He acknowledged, however, if professions like law or business cannot be legally recognized as personnel-related fields, the board will have to amend the ordinance accordingly. 

“If that’s not a related field, then really the law has said, 'Don’t put that kind of person in there,'” Menser said. 

Aponte confirmed the Salary Commission remains inactive, and said there is no legal requirement to begin its work by a fixed date, though July is the standard starting point. 

The commission cannot resume activity until the board adopts a revised ordinance consistent with RCW 36.17.024.