Open Public Meetings (HB 2630, HB 2567)

Two bills relating to the Open Public Meetings Act were heard last week in the House State Government & Tribal Affairs Committee. AWC staff testified on each bill with suggested amendments.

HB 2567 would increase the civil penalties for violating the open public meetings act from $100 to $1,000. AWC testified that the $1,000 penalty was excessive for some volunteer officials, especially in the smaller communities. The $100 fine was set back in 1971, and if adjusted for inflation, the penalty would equal about $500 today. Both the city and county witnesses suggested to the committee and the prime sponsor that a $500 cap would be more appropriate.

HB 2630 would change the definition of "meetings" from "meetings at which action is taken" to more specific language - "a gathering of a majority of the members of a governing body where they convene in person, by telephone, or by any electronic means to hear, deliberate, or take action on the business or affairs of the agency or body." According to the prime sponsor, Rep. Marko Liias (D-Mukilteo), former council member from Mukilteo, the bill is intended to clarify that electronic or telephone meetings under certain conditions would be allowed and would be subject to the notice requirements of the Act.

AWC testified that the bill as originally introduced would expand the action definition to include "to hear", which is considered a passive receipt of information and is not an appropriate form of "action taken" in a public meeting. In addition, AWC has some concerns about how to provide notice for electronic meetings and how to invoke time perimeters around such meetings. AWC is working with the prime sponsor to address these issues. There were a number of other stakeholders at the meeting with concerns about this bill as well, so it is expected to be reworked before it can move out of committee.

Enjoining the Examination of Public Records (HB 2839)

This bill would overturn a portion of the Soter v. Cowles decision. In that case, a school district preemptively sought a court ruling whether records requested under the Public Records Act would be exempt as attorney privileged or work product documents. The Court ruled in favor of the school district and the records were not disclosed. This bill would disallow agencies from petitioning for a judicial determination whether records are exempt from disclosure. Without this option, agencies will have to either release documents, rely on third parties named in the documents to seek protection, or take the risk that a court will later disagree and the agency will have to pay daily penalties. A hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, January 29 in front of the State Government Committee. Cities will express concerns about this bill.

Modifying when a special election may be held (HB 1653/SB 5271)

Currently, the county auditor, upon receiving a request from the county, city, town, or district, may call a special election to be held on one of the following dates: the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February; the second Tuesday in March; the fourth Tuesday in April; or the third Tuesday in May. This bill would eliminate the March and April special elections. In addition, the special election in May would be changed from the third Tuesday to the first Tuesday.

Prohibiting Discrimination in Community Athletic Programs (HB 3001/SB 6547)

This bill provides that a city, town, county, or district may not discriminate against any person on the basis of sex in the operation, conduct, or administration of community athletics programs for youth or adults, or in the allocation of park and recreation facilities and resources that support these programs.

In addition, the bill provides that each city, town, county, district, or public school district operating a community athletics program or issuing permission to a third part for the operation of such programs, shall submit annual reports to the Washington state human rights commission regarding compliance. The reports must include a variety of information including:

The number of athletic teams that competed in the league.
Total number of participants by team and broken down by number of males and females.
The total budget and expenditures for each team inducing the equipment replacement schedule, uniform replacement schedule, facilities, umpires, medical facilities, and publicity.

Cities support the requirements of Title IX and the belief that women deserve fair and equal access to athletic fields and sports facilities. While we fully support the spirit in which the legislation is proposed, there are stringent requirements for documentation that may impact cities abilities to provide services and programs that are of concern. Any change that would require cities to engage in extensive record keeping and reporting could result in the redeployment of existing resources dedicated to the provision of programs such as youth programs, scholarships, and park maintenance. The Senate version of this bill is scheduled for public hearing in the Senate Committee on Government Operations & Elections on January 31 at 3:30 pm.

[ previous article ] [ return to top ] [ next article ]