Quincy executive session questioned

Discussion subject wasn't notified

QUINCY - It is unclear if the Quincy City Council violated the Open Public Meetings Act by going into executive session to discuss an officer or employee without notifying the person first.

Council advised they were entering into a 15-minute executive session for personnel reasons on Tuesday night. The reason was to discuss complaints against a public officer or city employee, Councilmember Jim Hemberry said.

When asked by the Columbia Basin Herald if the public officer or city employee was advised of their right to keep the executive session open to the public, Hemberry said no.

Council adjourned to meet in executive session.

Before the executive session began, council was informed by the Columbia Basin Herald they may be in violation of the Open Public Meetings Act and requested to go on the record to object to the meeting.

The request was denied because council had adjourned the meeting to begin the executive session.

Mayor Dick Zimbelman said he was told by Quincy City Attorney Allan Galbraith they were able to conduct the executive session without informing the person of their option to keep the session open.

Galbraith was not present at the meeting.

"I knew about it and we discussed what the appropriate reference was going to be," he said.

Galbraith said he interprets the act to mean the council can hear the complaints in private and later give the person an opportunity to hold a public meeting or public hearing to discuss the topic.

Council was trying to decipher if the complaint was legitimate enough to proceed with, he said. The person would be given an opportunity to address council after the session if necessary.

"It's inherent that it's timely," Galbraith said.

He said according to his interpretation of the Open Public Meetings Act provision, council did not have to allow the person to speak at the same time as the executive session.

Galbraith said if he were present at the meeting and if the person would have requested the session remain open, he would have advised the council to keep it closed.

He said the person could have a public hearing after the complaints or charges were heard in the executive session.

According to the Open Public Meetings Act, "(An executive session can be held) to receive and evaluate complaints or charges brought against a public officer or employee. However, upon the request of such officer or employee, a public hearing or a meeting open to the public shall be conducted upon such complaint or charge."

"It would seem that such a duty is implied but it's not explicitly required they notify the employee," Washington State Attorney General's Office Deputy Solicitor General Tim Ford said. "If you weren't told, you would certainly have a valid complaint. It seems they should have been notified."

If the city official or employee requested the meeting stay open, council would be required to leave the meeting open to the public, he said.

"The language is clear," Ford said. "This is a due process right protected by the Open Public Meetings Act. If an employee is not informed of this due process right, their rights have possibly been violated."

Attorney Jim Whitaker, who acts as a city attorney for Moses Lake, advised the person council was discussing during the executive session should have been informed of their option to keep the meeting open so they could have an opportunity to clear their name, speak or be present.

Councilmembers Rebecca Young and Scott Lybbert were absent from the council meeting.

Council met in executive session of 15 minutes and adjourned with no action, City Administrator Tim Snead said.