Good governance does not create two classes of public voice; it uses one open process, one standard of notice, and one standard of accountability for all.
This proverb is not a direct quote from any one law or source. It is a governance synthesis drawn from Washington’s constitutional principle of popular sovereignty, the Open Public Meetings Act, the Public Records Act, and county governance guidance. Together, those authorities support a simple test: Was there one fair public process for everyone, or did some people effectively get a different class of access?
References
Municipal Research and Services Center. (2024). The Open Public Meetings Act: How it applies to Washington cities, counties, and special purpose districts.
*This is one of the clearest Washington sources supporting the proverb. It explains that public agencies exist to conduct the people’s business, that actions and deliberations should be open, and that the people do not surrender their sovereignty to government agencies. That directly supports the idea that government should not function with one level of access for insiders and another for everyone else.
Municipal Research and Services Center. (2025). County commissioner guide.
*This guide translates open-government principles into county practice. It explains that commissioners are expected to listen to residents, work through the board, keep meetings open, accept public comment where final action is taken, and provide meeting agendas and notices in advance. That is exactly what the proverb means by one open process and one standard of notice.
Municipal Research and Services Center. (2025). Public Records Act: For Washington cities, counties, and special purpose districts.
*Open meetings are only half the picture. This source explains that Washington’s Public Records Act exists so the public can stay informed and retain control over government. It supports the proverb’s accountability piece by showing that the public must be able to inspect records, follow decision trails, and verify whether the same process was used for everyone.
Washington State Constitution, Article I, Section 1.
*This is the foundational principle underneath all the rest: political power is inherent in the people. If government is deriving its authority from the governed, then it should not create practical tiers of civic influence where some voices count more because they receive earlier notice, better access, or more responsive treatment.
Tozzer, J. (2026, March 23). Two classes, two truths, and who gets heard. Clallam County Watchdog.
*This article is not the legal authority, but it is the local fact pattern that makes the proverb resonate. Its central concern is that residents and even public officials were hearing about important matters after the fact, creating the perception that some voices were amplified while others were left outside the process. The proverb simply translates that concern into a Washington good-governance standard.
The commissioners did not respond to a request that they write a letter of support on behalf of the citizens of their county to oppose the transfer of the National Wildlife Refuges to tribal trust. Here is today's email to the commissioners and Dr. Berry:
Dear Commissioners and Dr. Berry,
I’m following up on Commissioner Ozias’ statement that there are no studies showing harm reduction may encourage drug use. From what I’ve found, that’s not quite accurate—there is research exploring risk compensation and whether reduced consequences can influence behavior.
Are county harm reduction policies being evaluated with both the benefits and these potential risks in mind? And is there any additional information I can provide to help inform that discussion?
Commissioner Ozias hasn't heard of any studies that harm reduction policies encourage use because he likely asked the biased experts (JST MAT and Dr. Berry) he hangs with. One wonders if he might have taken the time to research the matter or asked the question of his smarty pants friends before shooting from the hip. Silly question, I know, but one would hope for more from an elected official.
Good Governance Daily Proverb:
Good governance does not create two classes of public voice; it uses one open process, one standard of notice, and one standard of accountability for all.
This proverb is not a direct quote from any one law or source. It is a governance synthesis drawn from Washington’s constitutional principle of popular sovereignty, the Open Public Meetings Act, the Public Records Act, and county governance guidance. Together, those authorities support a simple test: Was there one fair public process for everyone, or did some people effectively get a different class of access?
References
Municipal Research and Services Center. (2024). The Open Public Meetings Act: How it applies to Washington cities, counties, and special purpose districts.
*This is one of the clearest Washington sources supporting the proverb. It explains that public agencies exist to conduct the people’s business, that actions and deliberations should be open, and that the people do not surrender their sovereignty to government agencies. That directly supports the idea that government should not function with one level of access for insiders and another for everyone else.
Municipal Research and Services Center. (2025). County commissioner guide.
*This guide translates open-government principles into county practice. It explains that commissioners are expected to listen to residents, work through the board, keep meetings open, accept public comment where final action is taken, and provide meeting agendas and notices in advance. That is exactly what the proverb means by one open process and one standard of notice.
Municipal Research and Services Center. (2025). Public Records Act: For Washington cities, counties, and special purpose districts.
*Open meetings are only half the picture. This source explains that Washington’s Public Records Act exists so the public can stay informed and retain control over government. It supports the proverb’s accountability piece by showing that the public must be able to inspect records, follow decision trails, and verify whether the same process was used for everyone.
Washington State Constitution, Article I, Section 1.
*This is the foundational principle underneath all the rest: political power is inherent in the people. If government is deriving its authority from the governed, then it should not create practical tiers of civic influence where some voices count more because they receive earlier notice, better access, or more responsive treatment.
Tozzer, J. (2026, March 23). Two classes, two truths, and who gets heard. Clallam County Watchdog.
*This article is not the legal authority, but it is the local fact pattern that makes the proverb resonate. Its central concern is that residents and even public officials were hearing about important matters after the fact, creating the perception that some voices were amplified while others were left outside the process. The proverb simply translates that concern into a Washington good-governance standard.
The commissioners did not respond to a request that they write a letter of support on behalf of the citizens of their county to oppose the transfer of the National Wildlife Refuges to tribal trust. Here is today's email to the commissioners and Dr. Berry:
Dear Commissioners and Dr. Berry,
I’m following up on Commissioner Ozias’ statement that there are no studies showing harm reduction may encourage drug use. From what I’ve found, that’s not quite accurate—there is research exploring risk compensation and whether reduced consequences can influence behavior.
Are county harm reduction policies being evaluated with both the benefits and these potential risks in mind? And is there any additional information I can provide to help inform that discussion?
It's a Monday morning double-barrel unload.
Commissioner Ozias hasn't heard of any studies that harm reduction policies encourage use because he likely asked the biased experts (JST MAT and Dr. Berry) he hangs with. One wonders if he might have taken the time to research the matter or asked the question of his smarty pants friends before shooting from the hip. Silly question, I know, but one would hope for more from an elected official.