There is no specific process in state law regarding a councilmember or commissioner recusing himself from a matter, though the appearance of fairness doctrine in chapter 42.36 RCW discusses when a decision-maker is disqualified from participating in a quasi-judicial matter based on the doctrine.

In general, recusal is warranted when an elected official has a financial conflict of interest regarding a matter on which he or she is called upon to vote, or in a quasi-judicial matter where an elected official's participation may result in an appearance of fairness violation. Accordingly, some city and county codes have provisions that call for recusal in such situations, either in an ethics code or in quasi-judicial hearing procedures or in council or board procedures. Of course, some codes do not directly address the issue.

Recusal from an entire non-quasi-judicial meeting may or may not be required depending upon the circumstances. A quasi-judicial hearing, however, is another matter - recusal, when called for, is from the entire hearing process.

The duty of recusal is typically on the particular elected official, though there is nothing that prohibits another official or even an audience member from suggesting recusal; some city code provisions on this issue authorize the council to vote and require recusal in certain circumstances. In the appearance of fairness context, the request for recusal often comes from an opponent of a proposed quasi-judicial matter.

Here are some city council rules of procedure that address recusal:

• City of Port Townsend, City Council Rules of Procedure, Rule Nos. 3.6(g) and 6.1(c)
• City of Bothell, City Council Protocol Manual, Rules 6.01 and 9.15

The following are city and county code provisions that address the issue:

• City of Spokane Municipal Code, Sec. 4.01.050
• City of Bonney Lake Municipal Code, Sec. 2.04.700(b)
• Issaquah Municipal Code, Sec. 2.06.110
• Redmond Municipal Code Sec. 2.04.150
• Whatcom County Code, Sec. 2.104.060 (Duty to recuse)

Many cities and counties that have hearing examiner systems have a provision for recusal of the hearing examiner in conflict or appearance of fairness situations. For example, see Fife Municipal Code, Sec. 2.92.090.

Some cities and counties have similar provisions regarding planning commissions; see, e.g., University Place Municipal Code, Sec. 2.25.110.

There is no state statute that requires this. Most cities and counties post their agendas at their city hall or county courthouse the day of the meeting or the day before the meeting, depending on when the preliminary agenda is ready. Of course, most cities and counties now have official web sites and many have chosen to post their meeting notices and preliminary agendas there. Some have also established mailing lists so that citizens who are interested can subscribe to the list and receive meeting notices and other types of city and county news and announcements via email.

Many city councils and county councils/boards of commissioners in Washington have adopted formal rules of procedure to govern the conduct of their meetings. Often the motivation in adopting rules is to increase meeting efficiency and effectiveness and to manage/reduce conflict. The basic idea in adopting rules is to ensure that council/board of commissioners meetings will run more smoothly and follow a generally accepted format. A well organized and managed meeting does not necessarily guarantee good results, but it certainly helps.

City and town councils are authorized by statute or charter to determine their own rules and order of business and to establish formal rules for the conduct of council meetings. See RCW 35A.12.120 which applies to mayor-council and council-manager, noncharter code cities; RCW 35.23.270 which applies to second class cities; RCW 35.27.280 which applies to towns. Councils in first class cities are generally authorized to adopt rules of procedure by their city charters.

Although there is no statute that specifically authorizes a county council/board of commissioners to adopt rules of procedure for board meetings, that authority is necessarily implied from the council's/board's authority (and requirement) to hold meetings and conduct business. The legislative bodies of charter counties are either specifically authorized to adopt such rules by their charters or that authority exists as part of the county's broad powers.

For more on this subject, including frequently asked questions and sample rules of procedure, see our "Council/Board of Commissioners Rules of Procedure" Web page.

A majority of the city council, or the mayor, may call a special meeting. RCW 42.30.080. State law does not specify in what manner councilmembers must call for a special meeting, although it does specify that notice of a special meeting be written and delivered personally or by mail to the mayor, councilmembers, and the media who have on file with the city a request to be notified of special meetings.

In the absence of a statutorily-prescribed method, councilmembers calling for a special meeting may do so by any means that communicates their desire for a special meeting and that adequately conveys that it is actually a councilmember requesting the meeting. So, for example, councilmembers may call for a special meeting orally, in writing delivered in person, by telephone, by regular mail, by e-mail, or fax. If by e-mail, it should have been sent from the councilmember's e-mail address; a fax should be adequate if signed by the councilmember or sent from the councilmember's personal fax number.

A city can change its regularly established council meeting date by amending the basic ordinance that establishes the time and place for the regular meeting to indicate the new time and place, and then reamending back to the original language once the temporary period has expired.

Another way to change the regularly scheduled date would be to follow the procedure in the Open Public Meetings Act for adjourning a regular meeting to a time and place specified in the order of adjournment. RCW 42.30.090 indicates that less than a quorum of the council may adjourn a meeting in this manner. If all the members are absent from a regular meeting, the clerk or secretary of the governing body may declare the meeting adjourned to a stated time and place. Written notice of the adjournment must be given in the same manner as provided in RCW 42.30.080 for special meetings. A copy of the order or notice of adjournment must be conspicuously posted immediately after the time of the adjournment on or near the door of the place where the regular meeting was held. If a regular meeting is adjourned as provided in the statute, then the resulting meeting is a regular meeting for all purposes.

For code cities, RCW 35A.12.110 specifically provides that a councilmember selected by a majority of the council at the meeting would preside in the absence of both the mayor and mayor pro tem. For other classes of cities, there is no statute that governs. It would be up to the council to decide this issue. The logical approach would be to follow the same procedure mandated by statute for code cities.

Under the standard rules of parliamentary procedure, a motion to reconsider may be made only by a member who voted with the majority. Therefore, it may be made only by one who voted aye if the motion was adopted, or no if the motion lost.

MRSC legal staff have consistently taken the position that an absent city councilmember or a county commissioner may participate in a meeting of the council or board, if so authorized by the council or board and if done so in a manner such that all persons at the meeting are be able to hear the absent member and vice versa, such as by use of speaker phones.  The member participating in that way can be considered to be attendance at the meeting and can count towards the quorum.

A number of city councils have adopted rules that authorize such participation, though sometimes subject to certain limitations.  See, for example:

• City of Battle Ground Resolution 97-313 (Setting Rules of Procedure for City Council Meetings), (21) ("Voting and Teleconferencing")
• City of Bothell City Council Protocol Manual, Sec. 7.14 ("Attendance via Speakerphone")
• City of Port Townsend, City Council Rules of Procedure, Sec. 3.6(h) ("Voting")
• City of Edgewood Council Rules of Procedure, Sec 4.3
• Spokane City Council Rules of Procedure, Rule 5.12 ("Participation by Telephonic Communication")
• University Place City Council Rules of Procedure, Sec. 2.F(1) (particpiation by spaker phone does not constitue attendance and member cannot vote) 

Members of the public have, of course, no right to be disruptive at city council or board of county commissioners meetings. The council or board may order the removal of people who disrupt meetings. In extreme circumstances, when a group of people make it unfeasible to conduct the meeting in an orderly manner such that order cannot be restored by the removal of individuals, the Open Meetings Act authorizes the clearing of the meeting room and continuance of the meeting or reconvening at another location, without the public. RCW 42.30.050.

Some jurisdictions have adopted the Washington Criminal Code's provision pertaining to the crime of public disturbance. RCW 9A.84.030. This statute provides at subsection (1)(b) that a person is guilty of disorderly conduct if he or she "intentionally disrupts any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority." Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor.

There is no legal right for a citizen to speak at a city council or board of county commissioners meeting, although this could be allowed at the discretion of the council or board. The Open Public Meetings Act specifies that the public has a right to attend public meetings; it does not address speaking at those meetings.  Typically, boards and councils allow public comments at their meetings, either in an open comment period or with respect to specific agenda items.

When a city council or board of commissioners establishes a open, public comment period for its meetings, it establishes a forum where the public has some free speech rights.  While some limits can be set on such speech in an open comment period, the extent of such limits is an open question.  It is clear that the council or board may impose a time limits on how long people get to speak in an open comment period, but it is less clear how much the council or board can control the content of such speech.  Of course, the council may prohibit foul language or comments that have no relation at all to city business.  Yet, it is uncertain, in our opinion, whether the council may, for example, prohibit personal attacks (verbal) directed at city officials.  Some councils prohibit in their council rules such personal attacks, but such restrictions have yet to be challenged in the courts in this state.  

The Attorney General's Open Government Ombudsman, Tim Ford, has written on this issue, and he concludes in a March 24, 2009 letter to the mayor of Palouse, that “A municipality may adopt a policy to prohibit personal attacks such as insults if they lead to disruption of the meeting . . . Yet . . . that criticism may not be prohibited where the speech is directed on a substantive idea.”   He cites the decision of the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals (northeastern U.S.) in Mesa v. White, 197 F.3d 1041 (1st Cir. 1999), where county commissioners refused to allow at a meeting what they knew would be comment and criticism about the county manager. The court found that the county commissioners impermissibly restricted the plaintiff's speech based on his viewpoint.

So, a city council or board of county commissioners should be careful when establishing rules for public comments during such open comment periods, if they provide for such open comment periods. 

Yes, pursuant to a legislative change approved in 2005 (chapter 273, Laws of 2005), which amended RCW 42.30.080, the written notice may be delivered by e-mail or fax (or by regular mail).

If proper notice is given for the special meeting, final action may be taken even if the meeting is held outside the county seat. There is no restriction in the Open Public Meetings Act that would prohibit county commissioners from voting on an item at a special meeting, if proper notice is given for the meeting and the item is listed as business to be transacted at the meeting.

RCW 36.32.080 requires that regular meetings of the county commissioners be held at the county seat. RCW 36.32.090 allows for special meetings of county commissioners to transact the business of the county and indicates that these may be held outside the county seat. There is no general statute that restricts the ability of county commissioners to vote at a special meeting.

Therefore, unless there is a restriction in the local county code, the county commissioners are not prohibited from taking final action at a special meeting held outside the county seat.

No. Normally this situation does not arise, but there are procedures in Robert's Rules of Order to deal with it if it does, assuming that the council has adopted Robert's Rules by reference.

Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised (10th edition, 2000), Chapter II, Section 4, provides on page 42:

The presiding officer cannot close debate so long as any member who has not exhausted his right to debate desires the floor, except by order of the assembly, which requires a two-thirds vote.

So the other councilmembers, by two-thirds vote, can limit the time of debate for a councilmember. Some council rules of procedure also limit the amount of time a member can speak on an issue without further permission of the chair.

For more information regarding council rules, see our Council/Board of Commissioners Rules of Procedure webpage.

Many city councils have adopted rules that establish procedures for introducing items for council consideration, including procedures regulating the agenda preparation process and other preliminary steps that require some level of administrative review and/or preparation of background and supporting information prior to submitting an item for council consideration.

Here are some sample provisions that may be helpful (links are provided where the full text is available on our Web site):

Port Townsend

1.11 "Three Touch Rule" Defined. The following procedures are designed to prevent "surprises" to the City Council and citizens as much as possible. Decision makers at all levels of the City should have adequate time to thoughtfully consider the issues prior to the final decisions.

(a) Qualifying Conditions - Any subject or proposal for adopting or changing public policy, ordinances, resolutions or City Council directives which will eventually result in a decision of the City Council. The subject should "touch" (verbal,written or any combination thereof) the persons or groups, who may eventually recommend or approve a final action, three separate times. Quasi-judicial matters and any subject discussed in executive sessions are excluded from the "Three Touch Rule."

(b) Three Touch Rule Elements:

1. First Touch - A deliberate, verbal or written statement or notification that a given subject is being considered or developed for future consideration along with a preliminary estimate of the time lines involved.

2. Second Touch - A more detailed review / discussion of the proposal with adequate preparation made or personnel available to answer most questions and receive preliminary feedback from Council members.

3. Third Touch - A presentation (verbal or written as appropriate) of final details of the proposal in the appropriate draft proposal form which could be adopted as amended or referred to further process before final action.

(c) The "Three Touch Rule" is a general guide to help prevent surprises for elected officials, the city administration and the citizenry.

(d) It is recognized that, on occasion, routine, time-sensitive, unknown and/or emergency circumstances may arise wherein utilization of the "Three Touch Rule" is impossible, impractical, or not necessary. The hands of decision makers to respond appropriately should not be tied unnecessarily. However, when routine, time-sensitive, unusual circumstances and/or emergency conditions arise which justify an expedited decision making process, the persons requesting the expedited decision should explain the circumstances. The intention of the "Three Touch Rule" is to promote pre-discussion, allowing time for an unhurried decision.

Bothell

8.05 Placing Items on the Agenda

A. Agenda Planning Committee

All matters to be presented to the City Council at its regular meetings are reviewed by the Agenda Planning Committee. The Executive Management Team and City Clerk comprise the Agenda Planning Committee.

The City Manager and Mayor will review the agenda prior to the regular meeting.

B. City Council

A Council Member may request an item be considered on a future agenda either by making an oral request at a City Council meeting or submitting the request in writing to the City Clerk or City Manager at least ten working days prior to the meeting for which the item is requested to be placed on the agenda. The item shall be presented to the Agenda Planning Committee to schedule the item.
The City Council will review the projected agenda document at all regular meetings and agree to change the projected agenda if a majority chooses to do so.

C. Advisory Bodies and Civic Organizations

Advisory bodies of the City Council and other civic agencies (i.e., Chamber of Commerce, Greater Bothell Association) may submit items for Council by submitting a request in writing to the City Clerk or City Manger at least 15 working days prior to the meeting for which the item is requested to be placed on the agenda.

D. Members of the Public

A member of the public may request an item be placed on a future agenda while addressing the City Council during a regular meeting and/or by submitting the request in writing to the City Council, through the City Clerk's office. In order to allow sufficient time for Council to review, and staff to research the matter, the request should be submitted at least 15 working days prior to the meeting for which the item is requested to be placed on the agenda. Once the issue has been placed on the agenda, the City Clerk will notify the requester so that he or she may plan to attend the meeting.

E. Emergency Items

Emergency items may be added to an agenda in accordance with state law. Emergency items are only those matters immediately affecting the public health, safety and welfare of the community, such as widespread civil disorder, disasters, and other severe emergencies. The reason(s) for adding an emergency item to the agenda shall be announced publicly at the meeting, and the issue shall be included in the minutes of the meeting.

8.06 Development of the Agenda

Staff is required to submit an agenda bill or study session memorandum form for each topic of discussion on the City Council agenda. The deadline for submitting these forms is 10:30 a.m., at the Agenda Planning Meeting two Tuesdays prior to the date of the meeting for which the item is scheduled. The forms must include supporting documentation, including any information requested by Council at the previous Council meeting. It is the responsibility of the submitting department to obtain City Attorney review and approval of the agenda bill and/or study session memorandum prior to submittal to the Finance Division. The Finance Division will have determined the fiscal impact of each agenda bill/study session memorandum prior to the City Manager's approval.

Please see the Agenda Process Administrative Order for additional information on the agenda process.

Given the rigorous time frame for agenda development, it is extremely difficult for staff to compile or prepare information requested at a Monday night meeting in time for the Tuesday agenda bill/study session memoranda deadline.
The Council will receive follow-up information at the second Council meeting following the date it is requested. This would allow staff sufficient time to prepare reports that require additional investigative research and/or additional time due to complexity of subject matter.
....

Prior Administrative Review

All ordinances and resolutions shall, before presentation to the Council, have been approved as to form and legality by the City Attorney or the City Attorney's authorized representative, and shall have been first referred for review to the head of the department under whose jurisdiction the administration of the subject matter of the ordinance or resolution would devolve, and shall further have been presented to the City Manager or authorized representative for review.
Ordinance Preparation

The City Attorney shall review all ordinances. The City Attorney shall prepare no ordinance unless ordered by a majority vote of the Council or requested by the City Manager.

Port Angeles

Sec. 7 - Agenda. The City Manager shall prepare the agenda of business for all regular Council meetings. Any Council member, department head, or citizen desiring to place a matter on the agenda shall notify the City Manager by twelve o'clock noon on the Wednesday preceding the Council meeting. Every agenda item must be supported by a written explanation informing the Council and staff of the issue, background and/or analysis, and recommendation and/or conclusion, unless the item is self-explanatory or unless the Mayor or City Manager has waived this requirement. All written materials for the agenda shall be delivered to the City Manger by twelve o'clock noon on the Friday preceding the Council meeting. Except for announcements, late items that the City Manager does not receive by the stated deadlines shall not be considered by the Council except upon a majority vote of the members present.

(Port Angeles Resolution No. 20-96)

Kennewick

6.3 Ordinances - Introduction: All proposed ordinances shall be prepared by the City Attorney and bear his certification that they are in correct form. The City Manager shall attach to each proposed ordinance a brief digest of the provisions thereof and where it is proposed to amend an existing ordinance; such digest shall indicate the change sought to be made; said digest shall also show the name of the department or party at whose request the proposed ordinance was prepared by the City Attorney (KMC 2.04.150).

6.4 Distribution of Ordinances: The City Clerk shall prepare copies of all proposed ordinances for distribution to all members of the Council at least twenty-four (24) hours before the Council meeting at which the ordinance is to be introduced. If the ordinance carries an emergency clause, copies of the ordinance must be distributed at least twelve (12) hours prior to the meeting of the Council at which said ordinance is to be considered (KMC 2.04.150).

Edgewood

SECTION 3.

AGENDA PREPARATION

3.1 The City Clerk will prepare an agenda for each Council meeting specifying the time and place of the meeting, and set forth a brief general description of each item to be considered by the Council. The agenda is subject to approval by the Mayor and the City Manager.

3.2 An item may be placed on a Council meeting agenda by any of the following methods:

(1) A majority vote of the Council;
(2) Council consensus;
(3) By any two (2) Councilmembers;
(4) By the City Manager;
(5) By a Council committee.
(6) By the Mayor.

3.3 An item may be placed on a regular Council meeting agenda after the agenda is closed and the notice published if the Councilmember or City Manager explains the necessity and receives a majority vote of the Council at a public meeting.

...

3.8 Agendas will be finalized by the end of the business day on the Wednesday preceding the regular Council meeting. Packets will be available for Council pick up by 5:00 PM on Friday preceding the regular Council meeting. Agenda materials will be available at City Hall for the Council, City staff, media and public on Friday at 5:00 PM before the regular Council meeting.