Public meetings with a price tag

Have a seat at the table, if you can afford it

Port Angeles leaders proudly claim a commitment to equity and inclusion — but when it comes time to update taxpayers, the doors are closed unless you can pay to get in. Behind the polished plans and promises, a different reality emerges: public access costs extra, and real transparency is slipping away.

If there’s one thing the City of Port Angeles claims to be committed to, it’s inclusion and equity. There are plenty of examples.

The City of Port Angeles proudly touts its commitment to equity, from diversifying the Public Safety Advisory Board to promising affordable housing and climate action through inclusive planning. The City’s strategic plans and legislative priorities are impressive while promising access, transparency, and action.

However, when it comes to engaging the public — the very taxpayers who fund city operations — the commitment to equity appears much thinner.

This year’s “State of the City” event, a key opportunity for city leaders to update residents, was held at a private venue with ticket prices ranging from $25 to $200, effectively restricting access to those who could afford it.

Although a livestream option was available this year, virtual attendance is not a substitute for being in the room, able to engage and ask questions. This pay-to-play model sends a troubling message: public transparency is available only at a price.

And the trend is growing.

Last fall, Clallam County Commissioners held “Town Halls” to discuss the 2025 budget and the 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan. The meeting notice didn’t mention a fee, but attendees were required to pay $30 for admission in Port Angeles — with no option to attend without paying, even if they declined the meal offered.

Sequim’s admittance fee was lowered to $10.

Elected leaders often speak about equity and inclusion, but actions like these suggest a different reality — one where everyday citizens are increasingly shut out of critical conversations while access is sold to special interests and elites.

Last Equitable Wednesday, readers were asked if they believe the media applies identity labels (race, politics, culture) consistently across all groups. Of 201 votes:

• 72% “No, it favors certain groups”

• 11% “Yes, it’s mostly consistent”

• 15% “It depends on the outlet”

• 2% were unsure