Legislature passes SHB 24 96 altering tribal government-to-government consultation; council discusses ethics and recusal
Loading...
Summary
FSEC staff told the council SHB 24 96 passed the legislature and awaits the governor's signature; the bill lets the full council meet with a tribe at their request without constituting a meeting under the Open Public Meetings Act provided no deliberation or commitments occur. Council members raised questions about recusal and ethics when multi-topic consultations occur.
Lisa McClain, legislative and policy manager, briefed the council on SHB 24 96, saying the bill passed the legislature and was awaiting the governor's signature. She explained the bill would "allow the full council to meet with a tribal council at their request as part of government to government consultation" provided the number of council members present would not constitute a meeting under the Open Public Meetings Act if there is no deliberation and no assurances or commitments by council members. The bill also requires that any report summarizing the consultation be given to the tribe in advance and that the tribe be given 30 days to request corrections.
Council members expressed appreciation for staff's work on the legislation but raised questions about practical implications. Council member Nelson asked whether existing judicial ethics obligations could require recusal if council members participate in government-to-government meetings where multiple topics — including agency and project-specific matters — might be discussed. Chair Beckett said staff would follow up with more detailed guidance to ensure council members preserve required ethical boundaries and avoid inadvertent deliberation outside adjudicative processes.
The discussion clarified the bill's intent to deepen government-to-government engagement without replacing public review and without permitting closed-door commitments by the council.
