Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Public Meetings Act topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Snoqualmie council hears city attorney explain Open Public Meetings Act, risks of 'serial meetings'
Summary
City Attorney Dina Burke told the Snoqualmie City Council that Washington’s Open Public Meetings Act requires transparency for elected bodies, warned that private email or social-media exchanges can create illegal 'serial meetings,' and said OPMA defenses are not covered by WCIA insurance and penalties can be personal.
City Attorney Dina Burke told the Snoqualmie City Council on Feb. 9 that Washington’s Open Public Meetings Act is a “sunshine law” intended to keep elected bodies’ deliberations open to the public.
Dina Burke explained the law’s scope, saying a meeting occurs when a quorum gathers with the intent to transact official business and that the law covers deliberations, reviews, and final actions. She cautioned that "serial meetings"—a series of smaller communications that, taken together, involve a majority—can amount to an unlawful meeting and cited the court scrutiny around communications in cases like Eagan v. City of Seattle.
Burke reviewed exceptions that allow closed executive sessions, including potential litigation, real-estate negotiations and certain labor strategy discussions, but said any final vote must still occur in public. She noted procedural requirements for executive sessions, including announcing the purpose and expected end time.
During questions from council members, Burke warned that OPMA violations are not covered by the city’s WCIA insurance and said an individual official could face personal penalties (she cited $500 for a first violation and $1,000 for a second). She also advised caution about email and social-media practices that might unintentionally create a serial meeting, and recommended practical steps such as using BCC for informational emails and marking messages “for informational purposes only, do not reply.”
Council members sought guidance on who may bring an OPMA case; Burke said any person or group—residents, out-of-area parties or civic organizations—could file suit. She offered to help draft motions in advance to reduce legal risk and encouraged council members to consult the city attorney before circulating material that could reach a quorum.
The council’s discussion underscored concerns about misinformation on social media and how staff can help distribute accurate information without exposing the city or officials to OPMA risk. The session ended with the mayor and council agreeing to use staff to facilitate communications and to pursue training and clear practices to avoid inadvertent violations.
