Background
- Open Public Meetings Act governs meetings of public agencies in WA.
- Question presented concerns whether attendance at a standing committee meeting can trigger separate council meeting notice.
- A standing committee is a subpart of the city council; action by the council at a committee meeting can create a separate council meeting.
- Notice for regular standing committee meetings is provided; OPMA requires separate notice if the council takes action at the standing committee meeting.
- The analysis hinges on whether council members take action (RCW 42.30.020(4)) at the standing committee meeting.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does attendance by a majority of the council at a standing committee meeting create a council meeting? | Bailey argues such attendance implicates OPMA. | McKenna argues only action triggers a separate council meeting. | Yes, if council action occurs at the standing committee meeting. |
| If council members participate in a standing committee meeting, must there be separate notice for a council meeting? | Bailey seeks separate notice when council action likely occurs. | McKenna requires separate OPMA notice when action by council occurs at the committee meeting. | Yes, separate notice required if the council takes action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. City of Tacoma, 138 Wash. 2d 318 (1999) (broad definition of action under OPMA)
- Eugster v. City of Spokane, 110 Wash. App. 212, 39 P.3d 380 (2002) (action includes deliberations and public comment; definitions broad)
- Hartman v. State Game Comm'n, 85 Wash.2d 176, 532 P.2d 614 (1975) (agenda not required for regular meetings yet openness required)
- Mead Sch. Dist. 354 v. Mead Educ. Ass'n., 85 Wash.2d 140, 530 P.2d 302 (1975) (distinguishes regular vs. special meetings and notice)
- Dorsten v. Port of SkagitCnty., 32 Wash. App. 785, 650 P.2d 220 (1982) (notice requirements for special meetings)