Click here to skip to main content.
scenic picture from Washington state
SUBJECTS › LEGAL › Selected Court Decisions - Open Public Meetings Act
Updated 12/06

Selected Court Decisions - Open Public Meetings Act

  • Eugster v. City of Spokane, 128 Wn. App. 1 (2005)

    The language of RCW 42.30.060(1) ("No governing body of a public agency shall adopt any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, order, or directive, except in a meeting open to the public . . .") allows a governing body to take some actions without a public meeting.  No meeting takes place, and the Open Public Meetings Act does not apply, if the governing body of a public agency lacks a quorum.

  • Feature Realty, Inc. v. Spokane, 331 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2003)

    Action taken in executive session by a city council to approve a settlement agreement (a "collective positive decision") is beyond the scope of action that may be taken in executive session under RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) for discussion of litigation, potential litigation, or enforcement actions. 

  • Clark v. City of Lakewood, 259 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2001)

    Although RCW 42.30.060(1) provides that any action taken at a meeting held in violation of the Open Public Meetings Act is null and void, the statute does not require that subsequent actions taken in compliance with the Act are also invalidated.  But, where action taken in open session merely ratifies an action taken in violation of the Act, the ratification is also null and void.

  • In re Recall of Kast, 144 Wn.2d 807 (2001)

    If members of the public in attendance at a meeting are disruptive and make further conduct of the meeting infeasible, they may be removed.   However, the discretion to order removal of a disruptive person from a meeting must be excercised reasonably.

  • Recall of Lakewood City Council, 144 Wn.2d 583 (2001)

    The authorization in the Open Public Meetings Act for a governing body to meet in executive session to discuss potential litigation applies when a governing body engages in a candid discussion with legal counsel regarding the legal risks and consequences of potential litigation. RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) does not require a governing body to determine beforehand whether disclosure of the discussion would or would not likely cause adverse legal consequence. This statutory exception to the open meeting requirement is unavailable only if, from an objective standard, the governing body should know beforehand that the discussion is benign and will not likely result in adverse consequences. (Note: The 2001 legislature amended RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) by defining "potential litigation." This amendment did not apply to this case, but, in any event, it does not appear that the amendment would have changed the court's holding if it had applied.)

  • Eugster v. City of Spokane, 110 Wn. App. 212 (2002)

    For purposes of the Open Public Meetings Act, an "action" taken by a governing body can constitute final action where the members of the governing body arrive at a consensus position or agree to a collective positive or negative decision; a final action does not always require a formal vote.

  • Wood v. Battle Ground School District, 107 Wn. App. 550 (2001)

    The Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) does not apply to members-elect of a governing body, because they have no authority to transact the official business of the public agency. The OPMA can apply, depending on the circumstances, to e-mail communications between a majority of the members of a governing body. An exchange of e-mail can constitute a "meeting" under the OPMA, if a majority of the members "collectively intend to meet [by e-mail] to transact the governing body's official business" and they "communicate about issues that may or will come before the [governing body] for a vote." However, the OPMA is not violated when the members of a governing body merely receive information by e-mail about upcoming issues.

  • Miller v. Tacoma, 138 Wn.2d 318 (1999)

    Balloting by members of a city council when meeting in executive session to evaluate the qualifications of applicants for appointment to the planning commission violates the Open Public Meetings Act. Council balloting to achieve a consensus on a candidate for appointment to the commission was beyond the scope of the action that may take place in executive session for the purpose of evaluating candidate qualifications. The council's secret balloting was illegal even though it took a final vote on the appointment in open session.

  • OPAL v. Adams County, 128 Wn.2d 869 (1996)

    Although two commissioners discussed their intention to issue a permit over the telephone the night before a public hearing on the matter, the court determined that invalidation of an otherwise proper formal action of a public body is not required merely because the subject matter of that formal action was previously discussed at a nonpublic meeting.

  • Port of Edmonds v. Fur Breeders, 63 Wn. App. 159 (1991)

    Failure to provide public notice of the preliminary agenda of a council meeting and even of an item which is to be considered at the meeting may invalidate action taken at that meeting. The notice given must fairly apprise the public of the action to be taken at the meeting.

  • Slaughter v. Fire District No. 20, 50 Wn. App. 733 (1988)

    Ordinances, resolutions and other regulations or rules must be adopted at open public meetings; otherwise they are invalid.

  • Cathcart v. Andersen, 85 Wn.2d 102 (1975)

    The purpose of the open public meetings act is to permit the public to observe all steps in the making of government decisions.