Attorney General counsel briefs Tumwater council on Open Public Meetings Act; council agrees to trial agenda-referral form

Morgan Damoreau, chief transparency counsel at the Washington State Office of the Attorney General, told Tumwater City Council on Tuesday that the Open Public Meetings Act exists to let the public see how local decisions are made and warned that routine communications can unintentionally become meetings if they involve a quorum or serial deliberations.

Why it matters: Local officials said they wanted practical guidance. Damoreau’s presentation emphasized common traps—email chains, social-media exchanges, and one-on-one conversations that aggregate into a quorum—and the real consequences when courts find OPMA violations, including civil penalties, attorney fees and the possible nullification of decisions.

Damoreau advised council members to treat agenda and meeting rules as guardrails rather than obstacles. “The point is it’s not supposed to be scripted,” he said, describing the statute’s purpose as showing how members reach decisions. He added that executive sessions are narrowly construed: “You cannot make a final decision” in an executive session and permitted topics (for example, legal advice or property acquisition) must be followed strictly.

On communications, Damoreau warned that attending an event with a quorum present is not itself unlawful, but discussing agency business there can create an unadvertised meeting. He used practical imagery: if four of seven council members are side-by-side “talking shop,” that can constitute a meeting. He also advised routing agenda ideas through staff or the city clerk to avoid rolling or serial meetings and recommended distribution practices (for example, using BCC and having staff circulate materials) to limit accidental deliberation.

The AG’s office counsel used recent examples to illustrate risk. He described how a series of conversations in other jurisdictions—made visible by public records—led courts to conclude there was an intent to deliberate outside public meetings. He cited the Seattle head-tax aftermath and a San Juan Island planning commission case as cautionary examples.

Council members asked about public-comment rules, repetitive commenters and written submissions. Damoreau said councils can set reasonable rules (for example, limiting comment to agenda items) and shift to written-only comment where appropriate, but must ensure the agenda is posted in time to give the public a meaningful opportunity to comment. On written comments, he noted that distribution to council members suffices and agencies are not required to read every submission aloud.

On executive sessions and property transactions, Damoreau clarified that discussing the acquisition or negotiation-sensitive figures may be permissible in executive session while broader discussion of how the property would be used (design, programmatic details) should occur publicly. He warned of statutory penalties (he referenced $500 for knowing violations) and stressed the greater practical risk: courts overturning actions and leaving the jurisdiction with void contracts or decisions.

Practical outcome: Councilmembers and the presiding officer agreed to pilot a formal agenda-referral form and a staff-mediated process to move member proposals into public agendas rather than discuss them informally. The city administrator also circulated a proposed council calendar and said planning commission interviews are scheduled.

The council did not take formal votes on any ordinance or motion during the training. Members were advised to consult their city attorney for case-specific questions and to err on the side of open, public deliberation.