The presence of a quorum of the members of a city or county council at a meeting not called by the council does not, in itself, make the meeting a "public meeting" for purposes of the Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.30); the Open Public Meetings Act would apply if the council members took any "action" (as defined in RCW 42.30) at the meeting, such as voting, deliberating together, or using the meeting as a source of public testimony for council action.
Such alternative venues would require that:
The media may file a written request to be notified of a particular special meeting or all special meetings. These on-file requests should be periodically reviewed to assure that appropriate notice is given.
A written notice may be dispensed with if a member files a written waiver of notice with the clerk or secretary of the board at or prior to the time the meeting convenes, or who provides written notice to the clerk or secretary of the board via telegram, fax, or e-mail waiving notice. RCW 42.30.080
Less than a quorum of the library board cannot operate as a governing body, and therefore cannot approve vouchers, pay bills, etc. The library district, therefore, should do its best to ensure that it has sufficient board members to reach a quorum. However, because annual appropriations are made by the local government for which the library was established (see RCW 27.12.240) and the county, in the case of a rural county library district, is responsible for the collection and disbursement of revenue (RCW 27.12.070), perhaps the local government could step in, if needed.
However, pursuant to RCW 27.12.210(5), the library trustees “have exclusive control of the finances of the library.” So, again, the default is that the library needs to maintain a sufficient number of its board of trustees. Another option described below is to allow for the payment of bills prior to approval by the governing body pursuant to RCW 42.24.180, however even then, approval still needs to be obtained by the governing body.
Can a Library Board go into Executive Session to discuss which candidate(s) to recommend to the county commissioners for a vacancy on the Library Board?
Because of the wording of RCW 42.30.110, no executive session exception applies; both the interview of the candidates for appointment and the discussion of the candidates’ qualifications must be done in an open session. This does not involve an appointment to an elected position (RCW 42.30.110(1)(h)), nor is this a position of public employment (see RCW 42.30.110(1)(g)).
We have opined several times that an appointed non-elected and uncompensated officer such as a planning commission member or an appointee to a library board of trustees would not be considered a “public employee” for purposes of RCW 42.30.110(1)(g). A library board of trustee member is appointed pursuant to RCW 27.12.190. That statute explicitly states that a board member is uncompensated.
While not binding authority, in the concurrence/dissent in Miller v. City of Tacoma, 138 Wn.2d 318 (1999), Justice Madsen concludes that a person appointed to a non-compensated nonelective appointed position is not a “public employee” under RCW 42.30.110(1)(g).
Justice Madsen in her concurrence/dissent further makes a distinction between appointees to elective office and appointees to nonelective positions. She explains and concludes:
RCW 42.30.110(1)(h) permits evaluation of the qualifications of candidates for appointment to elective public office in executive session, and directs that in the case of candidates for appointment to any elected public position, interviews must be conducted in an open public meeting. This subsection necessarily includes evaluations of candidates for appointment to noncompensated elective positions. While the public’s interest in evaluation of appointees to elective office is likely greater than it is where public employees in general are involved, the private evaluation allowed by the exception in RCW 42.30.110(1)(h) is counterbalanced by the fact that in time the electorate will have the final say on who serves in the office.
The statute does not permit, however, the evaluation in executive session of the qualifications of individuals applying to noncompensated nonelective public positions. The public interest in their activity is apt to be significant. Such individuals may have considerable impact on the course of government activity. Perhaps because they are not ultimately subject to the elective process nor to the strictures generally associated with compensated employment positions, their evaluation and selection must be made in open public meetings. Regardless of the reasons underlying the statutory provisions, it is the Legislature's prerogative to define exceptions to the requirement of open public meetings, and not for this court to create exceptions. [Footnote 3.]