HOUSE BILL REPORT
HB 2567
This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in
their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a
statement of legislative intent.
As Reported by House Committee On:
State Government & Tribal Affairs
Title: An act relating to open meetings.
Brief Description: Increasing the civil penalty for violating the open public meetings act.
Sponsors: Representative Haler.
Brief History:
State Government & Tribal Affairs: 1/23/08, 1/30/08 [DPS].
Brief Summary of Substitute Bill |
|
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON STATE GOVERNMENT & TRIBAL AFFAIRS
Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. Signed by 8 members: Representatives Hunt, Chair; Appleton, Vice Chair; Chandler, Ranking Minority Member; Armstrong, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Kretz, Liias, Miloscia and Ormsby.
Staff: Colleen Kerr (786-7168).
Background:
Open Public Meetings Act
The Legislature enacted Washington's Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) in 1971. The
OPMA is modeled on California's Brown Act of 1953 and Florida's
Government-in-the-Sunshine Law, or Sunshine Act of 1967. Open government laws are
often referred to as sunshine laws in reference to a quote from Justice Brandies who said,
"Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." Indeed, Washington's Public Disclosure Act,
now the Public Records Act, was sometimes called the Sunshine Law at the time of
enactment.
Open Public Meetings Act Requirements
The OPMA requires that all meetings of the governing body of a public agency must be open
and public for anyone to attend. A "meeting" is defined as meetings where action is taken.
"Action" is the transaction of official business, including, but not limited to, public
testimony, deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations, and final actions.
There are statutory provisions regarding regular and special meetings, conduct, notice
requirements, and penalties and remedies.
Violations of the OPMA
The OPMA provides that every member of a governing body who attends a meeting of the
OPMA where action is taken in violation of the statutory requirements, and has knowledge
that the meeting was in violation, is subject to a civil penalty of $100. A violation of the
OPMA does not constitute a crime.
Summary of Substitute Bill:
Civil penalties for violations of the Open Public Meetings Act may be awarded in an amount
ranging between $250 - $1,000.
Substitute Bill Compared to Original Bill:
Provides that the civil penalties for violations of the Open Public Meetings Act may be given
in an amount ranging from $250 - $1,000, rather than for $1,000.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Not requested.
Effective Date of Substitute Bill: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.
Staff Summary of Public Testimony:
(In support) There are city councils that are constantly violating the provisions of the OPMA.
Some members will know they are in violations of the OPMA and continue with the meeting
and violate anyway because the $100 has no real impact. The $100 penalty was set in 1971.
Today that amount would be equal to $539, which would be a much more appropriate
amount for knowing violations of the state open government laws. The OPMA is an Act that
builds trust. Laws like these encourage young people to participate in government by
strengthening their faith in good government. But for these laws to be effective, they need to
have real consequences. The intent of the $100 is gone because of inflation, therefore it
needs to be replaced.
(Opposed) There are degrees of violations of the OPMA. Courts need to have discretion to
assess a penalty that is commensurate with the degree of violation, but $1,000 is still too
high. City council members are not making tremendous amounts of money and for them
even $100 is still a deterrent.
Persons Testifying: (In support) Representative Haler, prime sponsor; Rowland Thompson,
Allied Daily Newspapers; and Bill Will, Washington Newspaper Publishers Association.
(Opposed) Julie Murray, Washington Association of Counties; and Victoria Lincoln,
Association of Washington Cities.