HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-05-2010 - Agenda PacketMEDINA, WASHINGTON
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
MEDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 2010
4:00 PM
COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY MANAGER
PATRICK BOYD
DONNA HANSON
DOUG DICHARRY
BRET JORDAN
CITY ATTORNEY
JANIE LEE
STEVE VICTOR
MARK NELSON
KATIE PHELPS
CITY CLERK
SHAWN WHITNEY
RACHEL BAKER
CALL TO ORDER 4:00 PM
ROLL CALL
PRESENTATIONS
P1: Public Official's Do's and Don'ts
Lew Leigh, Washington Cities Insurance Authority
P2: Top Five Things New Council Members Should Know
Steve Victor, City Attorney
ADJOURNMENT
Next Regular Meeting - Monday, January 11, 2010; 6:30 pm.
Medina City Hall . 501 Evergreen Point Road • Medina WA 98039
425-233-6400 phone • 425-454-8490 fax • www.medina-vva.gov
The Top Five Things New Council Members Should Know
1. Council -Manager Form of Government
Washington State Law provides for two plans of government for noncharter
code cities: the mayor -council plan and the council-manager plan, the City of
Medina has adopted the council-manager plan (RCW 35A.13).
The council-manager form consists of an elected city council which is
responsible for policy making, and a professional city manager, appointed by
the council, who is responsible for administration. The city manager provides
policy advice, directs the daily operations of city government, handles
personnel functions (including the power to appoint and remove employees)
and is responsible for preparation of a budget. Under the council-manager
enabling law, the city council is prohibited from interfering with the manager's
administration. The city manager, however, is directly accountable to, and can
be removed by the council at any time.
The mayor in council-manager cities is selected by the city council from
among its members. The charter of an optional municipal code city or first
class city may provide for the mayor to be directly elected by the people. The
mayor generally presides at council meetings and is recognized as the head
of the city for ceremonial purposes, but has no regular administrative duties.
2. Open Public Meetings Act (Including Executive Sessions)
The Washington Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) requires that all meetings
of governing bodies of public agencies, including cities, be open and
accessible to the public, and that the public be given advance notice that the
meeting will occur.
A meeting generally includes any situation in which a majority of a city council
meets and discusses the business of that body. In order to be valid,
ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations, orders, and directives must be
adopted at public meetings. Any action of decision by a city council not taken
in a properly noticed open public meeting is invalid. In addition, council
members participating in a meeting that violates the OPMA are subject to a
$100.00 fine, and are subject to recall by the voters.
In addition to in -person meetings, Washington courts have found that a series
of e-mails, or telephone calls among a majority of council members can
constitutes a meeting in violation of the OPMA. Similarly, a series of postings
by a majority of council members on a social networking site may constitute a
meeting.
Kenyon Disend, PLLC
The exception to the OPMA is an executive session (RCW 42.30.110). An
executive session that excudes the public may be held to discuss following
topics:
Real estate negotiatons
Negotiations on publicly bid contracts, or labor contracts
Employee performance or evaluation of a job applicant
Litigation or potential litigation withe the city's attorney
National Security
There are many nuances to each potential executive session topic and the
executive session exception is construed narrowly by Washington courts. The
underlying purpose in allowing executive sessions is that the information
learned in such a session is confidential, and any disclosure of that
information to members of the public, or the public generally will damage the
interests of the city.
State law also prohibits city council members from disclosing confidential
information they receive in executive session. RCW 42.23.070(4) prohibits
disclosure of confidential information learned by reason of a municipal
officer's position, and RCW 42.23.050 provides for a $500 penalty and
possible forfeiture of office for a violation of chapter 42.23 RCW. In addition,
Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, §9 ("Executive Sessions"), provides
that a member can be disciplined for violating the confidentiality of an
executive session.
3. Public Records
Washington State has one of the strictest public records laws in the nation. It
requires far more diclosure by government than the federal Freedom of
Information Act. The Public Records Act (RCW 42.56) applies to "every
county, city, town, municipal corporation, quasi -municipal corporation, or
special purpose district" or "any office, department, division, bureau, board,
commission, or agency thereof, or other local public agency." The State
Legislature and State Courts are exempt.
The definition of a public record is:
" ... any writing containing information relating to the conduct of
government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary
function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any ... local agency
regardless of physical form or characteristics."
Kenyon Disend, PLLC 2
"Writing" is defined as
"Writing" means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating,
photographing, and every other means of recording any form of
communication or representation including, but not limited to, letters,
words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination thereof, and all
papers, maps, magnetic or paper tapes, photographic films and prints,
motion picture, film and video recordings, magnetic or punched cards,
discs, drums, diskettes, sound recordings, and other documents including
existing data compilations from which information may be obtained or
translated.
All local government records are available for review by the public, unless
they are specifically exempted or prohibited from disclosure by the state
statutes. The exceptions are very limited and generally fall in the categories of
law enforcement, medical, and personal information. It is also important to
know that the Public Records Act does not require government to create a
record that does not already exist, or to answer questions.
Public records include e-mail, text messages, voice and any other record of
communications relating to the conduct of government, even if the device
used for communication os a personally owned computer or phone.
4. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest
Washington law governing conflicts of interest by municipal officers (RCW
42.23) primarily adress contractual interests. State law prohibits a municipal
officer from having a "beneficial" (financial) interest, directly or indirectly, in
two types of contracts. The first is contracts that are or may be made by,
through, or under the officer's supervision, in whole or in part. The
"supervision" element of this prohibition has to do with the making of the
contract, not with implementing the contract after it has been made. So,
where the officer concerned is, for example, a city councilmember, the basic
prohibition is triggered for all contracts because of the council's authority over
the making of all city contracts and regardless of whether the councilmember
in question votes or not. The second type is contracts made for the benefit of
the municipal officer's office. In addition, the statute prohibits an officer from
accepting any compensation, gift, or award in connection with such contracts
from any person having a beneficial interest in them. It is worth noting that the
community property interest of one spouse in the earnings of another has
been held by the courts to be a sufficient beneficial interest to trigger the
prohibition contained in this statute. The interest of other relatives of a
municipal official in a contract would not, however, trigger the prohibition.
The basic contractual conflict of interest prohibition is subject to a number of
specific exceptions. The most significant one, which applies to officials in
Kenyon Disend, PLLC
cities with a population of less than 10,000 and counties with a population of
less than 125,000, exempts from the prohibition contracts where the amount
received by the municipal officer or the officer's business under the contract
does not exceed $1500 in any calendar month or, for cities under 10,000
population, where the total amount of the contract does not exceed $18,000
in a calendar year. This exception does not include a sale or lease of
municipal property to an official; such sales or leases are prohibited
regardless of the monetary amount represented by the contract.
Another important exception applies where the interest in a contract is
deemed "remote." A "remote interest" means:
That of a nonsalaried officer of a nonprofit corporation;
That of an employee or agent of a contracting party where the
compensation of suchemployee or agent consists entirely of fixed wages
or salary;
That of a landlord or tenant of a contracting party; or
That of a holder of less than one percent of the shares of a corporation or
cooperative which is a contracting party.
In the event of such a remote interest in a contract, the municipal officer
involved must disclose the extent of his or her interest prior to the formation of
the contract, and that person's vote, if any, in authorizing, approving, or
ratifying the contract may not be counted. The remote interest exception does
not apply if the officer having the remote interest influences or attempts to
influence any other officer of the municipality to enter into the contract.
The penalty for violation of the prohibitions is that a contract made in violation
of the chapter is void, and any officer violating its provisions is liable to the
municipality for a penalty in the amount of $500 and may be subject to
forfeiture of office. The statute also recognizes that criminal penalties may be
derived from other statutes.
5. Legislative and Quasi-judicial Actions by the Council and Appearance
of Fairness
Most business conducted by a city council is legislative consisting primarily of
the consideration and adoption of resolutions and ordinances, however, in
some instances, the council must act as a court, known as a "quasi-judicial"
action.
Typically, a city council is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity in certain land use
actions such as site -specific rezones, conditional use applications, variances,
Kenyon Disend, PLLC 4
and preliminary plat applications. In quasi-judicial action, the council may not
make a decision based on political factors, but must review a defined record
and apply the existing law to that record to arrive at a decision. In quasi-
judicial matters, the council may deliberate in executive session, but must
take any action in open session.
In quasi-judicial actions the council must also abide by Washington's
"Appearance of Fairness Doctrine". The appearance of fairness doctrine is a
rule developed by Washington courts that requires government decision -
makers to conduct quasi-judicial hearings and make quasi-judicial decisions
in a way that is both fair in appearance and in fact. The doctrine has been
applied primarily to quasi-judicial land use decisions, and its purpose is to
bolster public confidence in the fairness of such decisions by councils.
The doctrine disqualifies from the quasi-judicial decision -making process
those decision -makers who have prejudged the issues, who have a bias in
favor of one side in the proceeding, who have a conflict of interest, or who
cannot otherwise be impartial. Also, it prohibits "ex parte" communications
between a decision -maker and a proponent or opponent of the matter being
decided. However, it does not apply to statements made while campaigning
for elective office and it is not implicated by the receipt of campaign
contributions.
If a decision -maker's participation in a quasi-judicial decision violates the
appearance of fairness doctrine and that participation was challenged in a
timely manner, a court can invalidate the decision. A new hearing and
decision will then need to be made without the disqualified decision -maker.
Kenyon Disend, PLLC 5
Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) is a municipal risk pool. Its 1981 enabling
legislation allows it to perform like a private insurance company. One hundred and seventeen
cities and regional entities, performing a city function like 911 dispatch agencies, self -insure
each other.
Through the use of an actuary, the group annually creates over $28 million in assessments to
cover liability and property risks. WCIA has over $120 million in assets, of which $37 million is
undesignated member reserves to handle contingencies beyond actuarially predicted events. Its
administrative budget is $4 million, handles 1,800 claims annually, and spends $6 million in
litigating a pending of 300 lawsuits.
WCIA is distinguished from an insurance company by the aggressiveness of its litigation
defense. We win outright over 71% of our lawsuits, including a police win at the U.S. Supreme
Court. To actively reduce the number of claims and lawsuits, it is aggressive in promoting
annual risk management and training requirements to each member. All employees and elected
officials are required to participate in some manner. This council orientation counts as one type
of training. Failure to participate in our systematic training program, called the COMPACT,
results in substantial peer -induced financial or coverage -related penalties.
The following pie chart identifies significant public official liability losses in comparison with
other city departments. In addition, the following charts present the City's overall risk profile by
department, compared to its peer members of the Pool.
Public official losses largely consist of Mayor/City Manager employment practice activity: i.e.,
management of personnel. The Council's losses consist of land use issues and interference with
administration activity: i.e., deviating from strategic policy making functions, appearance of
fairness, conflict of interest, and quasi-judicial due -process violations.
The included vignettes identify actual public official losses, emanating from violations of clear
RCW-created roles and responsibilities, misassumption of powers, and deviation from city
policy.
WCIA periodically visits with councils early each calendar year to identify public official
conduct which precipitates losses. We hope this is informative and influences conduct.
0
E
CITY COUNCIL LIABILTY VIGNETTES
Below are common examples of questionable council action which needlessly generated claims
and litigation against the city.
Leaking Executive Session Information:
The Mayor was using the Authority's Pre -Defense Review program to systematically develop a
case for termination of the Public Works Director. Councilpersons Gus and Joe, the Director's
best friends since childhood, listened in executive session to the litigation plan outlined by the
assigned defense attorney. They could see that Mr. Director was soon to leave. They leaked the
defense plan to their friend, who in turn gave it to the press. It was printed on the front page of
the local newspaper, alerting the plaintiff attorney to weaknesses in his case. Neither the defense
attorney nor the Authority took this very well, and issued sanctions upon the City for future
personnel losses. Employment Practice coverage was limited by applying a $50,000 deductible
on future personnel losses and a demand that all council persons attend numerous personnel
training classes. The makeup of the council changed dramatically in the next election.
Leaking potential real estate transactions is also common. A realtor council person leaked a
significant town square plan to real estate buddies, which drove the project cost through the roof.
Other council leaks increased the purchase price of wet land property needed to balance wet land
percentages.
Moral of the Story:
If you interfere with the defense attorney's confidential work product and increase the
City's exposure to loss, your access to our claims and litigation will be protected.
Interlocal powers authorize claims and litigation resolution to our Executive Committee.
Extension to the Council is discretionary.
In all three examples the council person was publically reprimanded, financially
sanctioned, and issued a public apology. When asked, WCIA refused to pay legal
defense costs.
Open Public Meeting Violation:
Four council persons wanted to non -renew the city manager's contract. They took great pains
not to meet as a quorum, using serial meetings of three to reach a consensus, determine
resignation terms and recommend an interim manager's employment terms rL __. a_.. �a �L
remaining council an hour before the council meeting, rather than in execut
With four votes, they were successful, but incurred needless effort.
U
• The remaining council and the public were outraged. A public meeting violation lawsuit was
filed by a citizen's group. The council persons were forced to reveal their actions through formal
discovery, even giving up their personal computer hard drives and files. A court opinion forced
the city to pay both the council persons defense attorney fees and plaintiff attorney fees; over
$400,000. The big punishment however, was the public's scorn. Incumbents were not re-elected.
Moral of the Story:
Public transparency is here to stay. Study sessions and executive session could have
determined the issue. The city manager had a slam-dunk case for violation of
employment practice/due process rights, but settled for a lucrative resignation instead.
Understand public employees have union, employment manual and individual contract
rights. Avoid suspicion of process through Open Meeting Act, public or executive
session, usage.
Inappropriate Council Meeting Remarks:
Council person Beatrice always wants to support the public input meeting segment. When a
citizen complained about the City's failure to install a "Children Playing" sign in a
neighborhood, Beatrice volunteered the Public Works Director to install one. There was no
investigation through the MUTCD that it is an illegal sign. Nor was placement based upon traffic
volume, site distance or accident history to reach an informed decision.
• Harold, on the other hand, ignored a five-year accident history to stifle any city intersection
modification. He advised, on the record, that this way his way to church, gave him a free -left
hand turn, and resisted changing a good thing. Plaintiff attorneys used that admission -against -
interest comment to attain a five -zero settlement on behalf of a brain -dead bicyclist.
Moral of the Story:
Print and TV mediums give the plaintiff the gift of information. Study citizen requests,
ask for staff input, and have it respond to the public with knowledgeable information.
City staff goes through annual liability training, has access to the Authority's risk
management reps and a formal defense attorney counseling program resources, as well as
using the City Attorney.
Interference with Staff Functions:
Council person Clyde stopped a rookie police officer on a side road, berating him for his dress
and performance, said he had been keeping an eye on the officer, reviewed his personnel file and
criticized his way of policing. The officer went to his union, the City's employment manual
(where no council person was listed in the supervisory chain), to an attorney and a no -contact
order, and then to the press, just for good measure.
Moral of the Story:
Each type of elected official needs to know their role. The council's role is strategic,
policy -making. City day to day administration belongs to the Mayor or the City Manager,
iparticularly the employment practice function. Unlike private industry, public employees
. have enhanced job rights, polices, and procedures protected by statue. Council persons
are not in the employment practices chain of command. If you observe poor practices,
start at the top with the Mayor or Manager. Even starting in the middle of the chain can
cause problems. The strategic annual budget process is your check and balance.
Land Use Permit Anneal Process:
The Council was ecstatic over a big -box store application within the City until it was realized
that the artist's rendering included the name W-A-L... on the building's side. Council efforts to
frustrate the permit included addition of corporate health benefits as permit elements and
refusing multiple egress points through city property. Council newspaper and public quotes of
"we'll never let..." even appeared at council sessions, community organization meetings etc.
Moral of the Story:
Even the most offensive corporate cultures are not part of the permit process. More
objective issues such as traffic volume or public safety are more viable hurdles. Going
outside the process to show bias, although politically vibrant, create easy plaintiff due -
process advantages in court.
Shopping for Zoning/Code/Ordinance Changes:
The Chamber caught the Council's ear wanting to fight back against big chain stores which were
• putting local Mom and Pop stores out of business. Although the council sought the Pool's Pre -
Defense Reviews legal advice, it still shopped for a carefully crafted legal opinion which offered
partial help in creating an ordinance allowing only locally owned businesses within city limits.
National chains went on full alert.
Moral of the Story:
This is probably an unconstitutional ordinance, enacted but yet to be enforced. WCIA and
this council are at odds over what appears to be an intentional act against clear City
Attorney and Defense Attorney advice. If there is a chain -store lawsuit, coverage and
defense may not apply.
Use of Moratoria
The City of Seattle, Kenmore and Bothell all had rolling moratoriums against strip club and
similar facilities, extending from 18 months to nine years. A Federal Court judge, often
favorable to the Pool in land use litigation, served notice that application for adult entertainment
permits should receive the same timely resolution as any other land use action. After Seattle lost
$500,000 in litigation, the plaintiff sued Kenmore and Bothell, gaining easy mediation
settlements of $350,000 as well. Adult entertainment is protected by free speech and expression
civil rights and is now extended to land use processes through two published opinions.
Moral of the Story:
Moratoria are emergency measures to help preserve the status quo, intended to temporary
. suspend the right of property owners to submit development application and approvals
while cities review and revise comprehensive plans, licenses and regulations. That broad
01 statutory land use authority has now been modified by First Amendment free speech and
expression rights. Old ordinances and land use practices should be reexamined and
improved by shortening the process, to as little as six months. Rolling land use moratoria
is now easy targets for plaintiffs.
•
Council Usage of Electronic Communications
Council person Jane twittered the council to meet at a local restaurant to de -stress from that
night's council decisions. The invitation reached more than just the council and public activists
showed up. One council person, upon entering the front door and seeing that he was about to
make a quorum in violation of the open public meetings act, left before he could be counted.
Several large -city council persons, using city computers during a public -input session, e-mailed
each other as to the veracity of a speaker. When challenged, they had to divulge this public
record, impacting the way the City was viewed by the public.
Moral of the Story:
City official's use or misuse of electronic correspondence can be particularly problematic
under the Appearance of Fairness Act when dealing with Land Use issues.
Taking Matters Into Your Own Hands:
Harold didn't think the City's newsletter did a good enough job so he created his own. He
copied (poorly) the City logo, slandered the female public works director and included executive
session discussion to make it interesting. He made city policy.
Jim and John suspected ineffective police department actions, so they spied upon a drug sting
operation, disguising them by using a spouse's car, but they breached the security perimeter,
imperiled the officer's safety and blew the potential bust. They drew union grievance, a civil
lawsuit, and their own recall action. They asked WCIA and the City to pay their legal bills. Both
declined, supported by a State Auditor gift of public funds opinion.
Using his outdoor activist election plank, Carl was excited about a regional trail soon to go
through the city. He couldn't wait for the trail head to be purchased however, and being an
experienced DC-8 Cat driver, cleared the trail head anyway. Negotiations with the land owner
ceased and the city lost any leverage. It spent thousands to litigate a land use "takings" lawsuit
including an exorbitant purchase price.
Perhaps the most blatant act was a councilperson who decided he would single-handedly head
off an adverse land use decision by a subcommittee which would impact a local citizen's group.
During a TV council session, he gave his confidential city liability opinion by the City Attorney
to the group's (plaintiff) attorney. The councilperson opined in error that he was waiving his
individual attorney/client privilege. The council directed the police chief to retrieve the
document while the plaintiff attorney read furiously, also on camera. Without there being a
crime, the attorney kept the document, advancing his intended land use lawsuit.
Moral of the Story:
Public officials need to know the parameters, often established by RCW, in each other's
powers and roles. They also need to differentiate between their public and private
opinions. Taking an oath of office may actually limit their actions. Only the entire council
can waive attorney client privilege. This councilperson was publicly sanctioned, paid a
$500 fine from personal funds, stripped of sub committee assignments, and was forced to
issue an apology.
WCIA subsidizes many city department and council, cost-free trainings, national
accreditations and internal investigations as part of its training and consulting role.
Taken to extreme the oath of office won't protect public officials from intentional acts
violations, or from committing crimes. Council persons should always have the
protection of real, rather than implied, authority.
Revised Council Do's and Don'ts
0
0
AUTHORITY PHILOSOPHIES
Mission Statement:
"WCIA will take a leadership role to provide professional risk management and stable
risk financing programs that respond to members' needs."
Annual Goals:
• Assure that WCIA programs are prudently funded and managed to stabilize member
assessments.
• Maintain prudent growth plan to preserve WCIA's role as a leading pool in the state.
• Foster sound risk management practices.
• Respond to member needs.
Program Control:
WCIA believes the Full Board should be fully aware, and in control, of all pool
. operations. Not a broker, third party administrator or insurance company. In our
program, the "insured's" run the "insurance" company.
Membership Control:
The Authority believes the Full Board and a Committee System should be in complete
control of the entire program. And that each member, should fully participate in its risk
profile, loss resolution and training.
Independence from the Insurance InduskK.
The Authority was punished by the insurance industry in the previous, mid-80's, "hard
market cycle". We have steadfastly built a commanding surplus of funds, a large self-
insurance layer, and aggressive pre and post loss support programs to insulate us from
those market cycles. Remaining liability insurance costs for catastrophic loss is only 3%
of our administrative budget, versus 98% for other pools. We use "reinsurance" rather
than "excess" insurance. The insurance carrier performs only a checkbook function.
Identification of desired exposures, coverage decisions, and claim and litigation decisions
for all coverage layers revert to the Full Board.
Financial Independence:
WCIA has the strongest financials of any Washington Pool. This allows us to assume
any exposure or provide any service desired by the Full Board. We have amassed $120
• million in assets, a $37 million surplus, and a $4 million administrative budget. Member
assessments are annually subsidized by a stable investment income of 5.8% investment
yield.
0
Litigation and Claims Management:
WCIA believes in aggressive litigation as opposed to loss settlement to discourage
unwarranted claims; each member should have direct participation in its claims and
litigation, both in pre- and post -loss stages.
Pre -Defense Review: Pre -loss services include a $625,000 budget -line item, created to
pre -position a member for potential land -use, employment and other management related
litigation. This is a cost-free service, requires no member participating funds, and has no
adverse coverage exclusion ramifications.
Litigation Defense: The Authority uses trial experienced, aggressive, municipal defense
experts who customize their efforts to our expectations. We annually win (pay no
indemnity damages) in 71 % of all litigation. We include department heads and
employees in depositions, mediations and trials. Councils receive frequent defense
attorney updates. Our program is active at the U.S. Supreme Court, Washington State
Supreme and the Federal 9th Circuit appellate court.
Training Commitment COMPACT:
WCIA believes a formal, comprehensive training program, coupled with aggressive field
risk management services, systematically reduces risk of loss and supplements city
operation. Aggressive risk management is an essential, required element of pool
membership.
A $700,000 budget line item supports a nine -member field risk management team, and a
formal COMPACT training program. The COMPACT, which receives strong
membership support, provides incentives and penalties to encourage effective risk
management and loss control participation. Both mandatory and voluntary elements are
provided cost free, often at the member's own location. Consultant and member -specific -
training requests, such as development of personnel manuals are welcomed. The field
team, cross -trained in claims adjusting, systematically reviews member departments from
exposures determined by the Full Board. In addition, they help sustain each member's
risk management program with specific service. To insure responsiveness, each member
has a risk management representative assigned to them who has no other conflicting role.
Assessment Formula:
Each member's assessment should largely reflect its own loss experience, its potential
exposures and a percentage of pool services; be developed by a professional actuary;
openly approved by the Full Board; annually receptive to improved risk man
results.
AUTHORITY COMPACT
HISTORY: The COMPACT is a formal, multi -year program consisting of training, risk
management and membership attentiveness elements. The entire membership commits to annual
training and risk management efforts while the Authority commits to high -quality resources.
Since the late 1980's, it has systematically addressed every municipal exposure. The annual,
audited, topics are chosen by the membership and implemented in multi -year increments. An
annual $450,000 line item, within a $700,000 Member Services Department budget, is
specifically dedicated solely for training purposes. National and local trainers are brought
directly to the individual member or nearby regional training sites. In 2008 over 5,739
employees were trained at 268 sites. Unusual to Washington pools, risk management training is
a mandatory membership obligation, accomplished largely through this program. The
COMPACT has received national honors for meritorious achievement, recognized as a state-of-
the-art training program, from the Association of Governmental Risk Pools (AGRIP).
TRAINING: After analyzing the ease and enthusiasm with which the original, single training
requirement was met, and the large volume of additional voluntary training repeatedly requested,
a second mandatory training requirement was added. Unlike the first requirement in which every
member trains on the same topic, this training is highly flexible, enhanced by a broad list of
topics. A Risk Management 101 series, specific to the individual member's sole need, further
adds to program flexibility. This popular session is taught by Authority staff, who actively seeks
department employee's participation. Specific risk management problem -solving, within the
employees own job environment, are actively pursued. Topics traditionally include police, fire,
land use, personnel, public works and parks, plus custom public officials trouble -shooting areas.
Updated issues, precipitated by the legislature or court decisions, complete the Authority's
COMPACT commitment.
SUPPORT: The Risk Management Reps are each assigned a specific member, and are
instrumental in ensuring its annual training obligation success. They research each year's first
mandatory training topic, to develop a comprehensive checklist of training specifics. Members
frequently forward their checklist responses weeks before the Rep personally makes an annual
field visit to maximize field time. Members receive personalized assistance in successfully
achieving their COMPACT goals.
SUCCESS: In the history of the program, only one city failed in its COMPACT requirements
and was asked to leave the pool. In 2008, one hundred percent of the membership passed the
three training topics, the annual COMPACT field audit, and the Member A - ---
while aggressively training in many more areas as well.
0
2010 COMPACT ELEMENTS
Organizational Attentiveness Requirements
• Attend one Full Board Meeting a year (January, May or October)
• Pay Assessments on Time — By January 31 st
• Appoint a WCIA Delegate and Alternate — update when changes occur
• Report Claims in a timely manner — per the Claims Manual policies
• WCIA City Attorney must fulfill the City Attorney Attentiveness Requirements
• WCIA Member Delegates must attend assigned Delegate Attentiveness Trainings
COMPACT 1st Mandatory Training
• Members are required to attend on training session to fulfill the requirement
• Attendance requirement Those responsible for Land Use decision making
• Training consists of Liability Prevention in the following areas:
CTED and PAW courses on Local Planning
Land use Liability Updates on Regulations Compliance
Permit Center Procedures and the Pre -Application Process
Parliamentary Procedure
New Trends and Controversial Issues in Land Use
Land Use Liability Legislative and Quasi -Judicial Decision Making
WCIA Council Do's and Don'ts
OMPA, Public Hearings and Public Disclosure
Cosponsored Land Use and Elected Official Trainings
COMPACT 2nd Mandatory Training
Second Mandatory Training compliance requires each member to complete one training from the
variety of training programs to include:
WCIA Orientations (Elected officials, New Delegates or Member & City Attorneys)
WCIA Claims & Incident Training (scheduled years)
WCIA Risk Management 101 Series (Fleet, Volunteer, Parks, Council, Fire)
Defensive Driving Programs — Auto Liability (Public Safety EVOC and EVAP)
Personnel and Employment Law Training for Management and Employees
Land Use Liability Prevention (Police, Fire and 911 Communications Trainings)
Co -Sponsored Programs (to be advertised)
Municipal Certification Programs (Department generated)
COMPACT 3rd Mandatory Training
• Third Mandatory Training compliance requires each member to complete one training from a variety
of training programs generated, coordinated and implemented on site. Topics include but not limited
to:
Risk Management, Safety or any WCIA Orientations or Trainings
Note: Group V Interlocal Agencies and Contract Cities training requirements may be adjusted to meet individual
entity limitations.
PRE -DEFENSE REVIEW PROGRAM
® m
In 1989, WCIA implemented a new program to assist Members with potential sensitive
exposures. Our pre-emptive "damage control" perspective produced a program called Pre -
Defense Review.
Program Description:
• Participation is voluntary. WCIA strongly encourages program use, but it is not yet a
requirement for coverage and/or defense.
• Funding for the program comes from the WCIA Administrative Budget. Pre -Defense
Review monies are not included in any individual member assessment calculation or
loss cost.
• Discretion of the use of the program lies solely with the Claims Manager. The
Claims Manager makes determination of the Pre -Defense progression, from incident
to claim or litigation status. The program ends once a formal claims status is
recognized. The Claims Manager controls assignment of the Pre -Defense Attorney.
The same attorney usually continues as the Defense Attorney in any resulting
litigation for the purpose of continuity.
• Communication and cooperation among team members are required for program
success — the team includes the City Attorney, Member Human Resources staff, and
particular Department staff, Claims Manager and Defense Attorney.
Procedure:
• WCIA Member Delegate notifies the WCIA of the request for help. Initial contact
may be by phone but should always be followed up with a written request including
all backup materials, correspondence, etc.
• The WCIA Claims Manager will determine if the Pre -Defense Program applies.
• WCIA will assign the issue to the appropriate Defense Attorney.
• The assigned Attorney will contact the WCIA Member and work directly with them
until the situation is resolved.
Examples of Program Usage:
Harassment Complaint
Disability Accommodation Issues
Potential Termination
40 For questions, please contact Ann Bennett, Deputy Director, Claims
•
CONSULTATION PROGRAM
WCIA provides an assortment of consultation opportunities for its Members. The following
provides an overview of the various types of services available:
On -Site Analysis:
• Your assigned Risk Management Representative is available for on -site analysis of
risk management exposures common to municipal government, such as playground
and building inspections.
• Your Risk Management Representative is available to attend meetings with
department heads and/or staff to discuss your agency's particular risk management
issues.
• Your assigned Risk Management Representative is also available to provide New
Member, New Delegate or New Department Head Orientations. The Claims Director
• is available to provide new Police Chiefs, and City Attorneys and Claims Contact
Liability Inquiries:
• If you have a liability question or concern, your assigned Risk Management
Representative is available to research and respond to you either by phone or email.
• Legal consultations are available to the Membership on a limited basis. These
consultations may include legal review of personnel policies or practices, or other
general issues that are not particular to a potential claim, but that require the
assistance of an attorney. Please contact the Risk Services Manager directly.
For questions, please contact Lisa Roberts, Risk Services Manager
•
WASHINGTON CITIES INSURANCE AUTHORITY
Balance Sheets
As of December 31, 2008 and 2007
ASSETS
Cash and Cash Equivalents
Accrued Interest
Investments
Investment in GEM
Capital Assets
Accumulated Depreciation
Accounts Receivable
Prepaid Expenses
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS
Accounts Payable
Accrued Vacation Compensation
Deposits Payable
Property & Vehicle Claims Reserve
qeserve for Claims
Reserve for Increased Confidence Level
TOTAL LIABILITIES
Net Assets -Invested in Capital Assets
Net Assets -Unrestricted
TOTAL NET ASSETS
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS
See Accountant's Report
• 2
2008 2007
$8,615,595 $ l 8,509,950
481,491
405,130
99,434,051
92,101,916
892,635
817,652
6,040,645
6,020,133
(879,756)
(721,497)
267,458
778,651
232,937
326,859
$115,085,056 $118,238,794
$392,395
80,640
288,693
890,222
63,421,099
14,298,901
$416,579
69,794
288,693
1,568,009
53,242,291
14,785,709
79,371,950 70,371,075
5,160,889
30,552,217
35,713,106
$115,085,056
5,298,636
42,569,083
47,867,719
$118,238,794
WASHINGTON CITIES INSURANCE AUTHORITY
Statements of Revenues, Expenses
And Changes In Fund Net Assets
For The Years Ended December 31, 2008 and 2007
•
2008
Operating Revenues
Member Assessments - Liability $20,965,231
Member Assessments - Property 7,112,447
Member Assessments - Fidelity 76,931
Seminar Revenues 5,051
Total Operating Revenues $28,159,660
Operating Expenses
Loss & Loss Adjustment Expenses
$39,943,616
Confidence Level Expense (Reduction)
(486,808)
Insurance - Members
4,721,764
Salaries and Wages
1,478,612
Personnel Benefits
502,808
Professional Services
Claims Adjusting
421,351
Pre -Defense Review
469,911
Consultant
188,074
Legal
51,377
Actuarial
26,500
. Audit
19,795
Financial Services
17,981
Risk Management Audit
9,942
Rent
120,000
Transportation
79,138
Printing
14,831
Communications
26,085
Supplies
41,715
Dues and Conferences
22,199
Retreat/Board Meetings
27,026
Depreciation
36,706
Miscellaneous
25,161
Repair and Maintenance
6,391
Seminars and Training
398,496
0
Total Operating Expenses $48,162,671
See Accountant's Report
-3-
2007
$20,727,026
6,503,79I
72,397
13,840
$27,317,054
$20,419,979
1,031,811
4,826,625
1,385,765
419,492
524,359
489,527
241,839
88,579
25,500
15,319
12,880
8,150
120,000
78,395
18,699
17,884
44,268
26,167
18,216
49,574
24,410
5,708
349,860
$30,242,006
U.) IMPOR
r
C.
0
O
W
.E o
(o N
Lj
co
cf)
�
Q �O
O
> N
O
J
c6
O
N
0
O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O
M M N N T- 0 64%
EI} 0). f!} ER EF? 64
oS
MMd
WSMdco
co
U
C
'm
�
SMd
N
_T
@
u U-
@
d
a) O
cn co
NMd
3Md
U U.
a
a cn
WNd
Nd
C,
0
L
Od
VW
N �
a
c
L
CC,
I�
E a�Y�
¢ o _
a
d
S2! �
WNJ
Sa
vv
O Q
U
C
C
N
C �
m
c �
>
a� c
C
c
o
w in
conU
m
Qd
U n a
>
U
J V
Q LL
d
CL d
N
d
O
a
°
�
U
c
d
E
�p W cn
a U O 'S
t
14
W
Y
rf000
ry
n
V )
0
U
0-
D
f�
V
0
00
0
0
CV
1
0
0
N
c o 0 0 0 o c o 0
7 M M N N O O
b9 V3 69 EP. 6H 55 Yi 69 69