Ask MRSC - Elected & Appointed Officials

Potentially yes, however, the commissioner should consult with the district’s legal counsel for an opinion based on state law and any adopted district policies/procedures.

In general, the Code of Ethics for Municipal Officers (chapter 42.23 RCW) prohibits municipal officers from using their positions to secure special privileges or special exemptions for themselves or others, and from entering into certain contracts or having other personal financial interests with their jurisdictions. A park district commissioner is included in the definition of municipal officer. Employment with one’s own agency is considered a contract relationship.

RCW 42.23.030 specifically prohibits a municipal officer, or their office, from directly or indirectly receiving a financial benefit from a contract if the contract is made by, through, or under the supervision of the municipal officer. Any contract entered into by a municipality in violation of this prohibition is void.

The provision limiting interests in contracts does have some limited exceptions that may apply to officers working as employees, including RCW 42.23.030(5) & (6)(a):

(5) The employment of any person by a municipality for unskilled day labor at wages not exceeding $1,000 in any calendar month. The exception provided in this subsection does not apply to a county with a population of 125,000 or more, a city with a population of more than 1,500, an irrigation district encompassing more than 50,000 acres, or a first-class school district;

(6)(a) The letting of any other contract in which the total amount received under the contract or contracts by the municipal officer or the municipal officer's business does not exceed $3,000 in any calendar month.

MRSC’s page on Ethics and Conflicts of Interest provides an overview of the ethics and conflict of interest laws that apply to municipal officers, including prohibited uses of public office, special privileges and exemptions, contract interests, remote interests, and exceptions.

As indicated, the park district commissioner should consult with their agency’s legal counsel before also accepting employment with their own district.

For water-sewer districts, RCW 57.12.010 sets forth compensation for commissioners (initially $90 per day spent in actual attendance at official meetings or performing official business) with an annual cap on compensation. This statute also includes this provision about periodic adjustments for inflation:

The dollar thresholds established in this section must be adjusted for inflation by the office of financial management every five years, beginning January 1, 2024, based upon changes in the consumer price index during that time period.

In 2024, this per diem rate was set by the State Office of Financial Management (OFM) at $161.

This December 2023 blog post summarizes the increase effective in January 2024, Salary Increases Coming in 2024 for Many Special Purpose District Officials, including:

Water/Sewer Districts (RCW 57.12.010): Payment of compensation for each board member shall be at a rate of $161 per day, with compensation for each board member not to exceed $15,456 per year.

The OFM’s five-year Notice of Dollar Threshold Adjustment for all special purpose districts is in WSR 23-23-158. The next five-year adjustment is expected in 2028 for a January 1, 2029, effective date.

A couple of legal provisions regulate political activity by city officials.

The first are provisions related to lobbying, as mentioned in the inquiry. RCW 42.17A.005(34) officially defines “lobbying” as efforts to influence decisions by the state legislature or a state agency about particular proposed legislation or enactments. RCW 42.17A.635(2) and (3) allow cities to engage in certain limited lobbying activities such as:

• Communicating with a legislator at their request;
• Communicating requests for legislative action or appropriations necessary for efficient city conduct to the legislature through “proper official channels”;
• Communicating with elected officials about official city business; or
• Advocating the city’s official positions or interests to elected officials.

Also important is RCW 42.17A.635(5)(d), which outlines certain acts that are not considered lobbying.

Further, employees and officials retain the right to engage with the legislature in their personal capacities. This is made clear in RCW 41.06.250(2), which provides that state and local government employees have “the right to vote and to express their opinions on all political subjects and candidates and to hold any political party office or participate in the management of a partisan, political campaign.” They also have the right to participate in non-partisan campaigns, initiatives, referenda, and issues of a similar character.

Beyond general lobbying activities, laws like RCW 29B.45.010 (formerly codified as RCW 42.17A.555) prohibit city employees and elected officials from using public facilities to campaign for specific ballot measures or political candidates. RCW 42.17A.635(4) similarly prohibits public facility use to campaign for legislative initiatives. These RCWs define “public facilities” broadly to include city machines, equipment, employee work time, etc.

Exceptions to the restrictions in RCW 29B.45.010 are made for city council actions at open meetings (such as passing resolutions that establish the city’s state legislative priorities), and activities that are part of the city’s normal and regular conduct. WAC 395-05-273 defines “normal and regular conduct” to mean lawful acts that are brought about in a usual way and not through extraordinary means or manner. The “normal and regular” RCW exception frequently generates questions, and MRSC often recommends reaching out to the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) for additional guidance. This PDC page has additional information about lobbying regulations: Lobbying Activities. Specific requests for PDC guidance can be submitted at this page: Submit a ticket: Help and Support.

MRSC also has some additional resources on the subject that may be of assistance:

• Political Speech and Lobbying by Local Government Employees: What are the Rules of Engagement? (2017)
• Mayor and Councilmember Handbook (see chapter 7 in particular)
• Use of Public Facilities in Election Campaigns

MRSC’s guidance is only general, so specific questions about lobbying or campaigning statements or activities should be referred to the city attorney for a definitive opinion and advice.

The general requirements for official bonds are provided in Chapter 42.08 RCW. And RCW 35A.12.080 is the primary statute discussing bonding requirements for officers of a code city with a mayor-council form of government. It states the following:

Any officer before entering upon the performance of his or her duties may be required to take an oath or affirmation as prescribed by charter or by ordinance for the faithful performance of his or her duties. The oath or affirmation shall be filed with the county auditor. The clerk, treasurer, if any, chief of police, and such other officers or employees as may be designated by ordinance or by charter shall be required to furnish annually an official bond conditioned on the honest and faithful performance of their official duties. The terms and penalty of official bonds and the surety therefor shall be prescribed by ordinance or charter and the bond shall be approved by the chief administrative officer of the city. The premiums on such bonds shall be paid by the city. When the furnishing of an official bond is required of an officer or employee, compliance with such provisions shall be an essential part of qualification for office. [emphasis added]

MRSC recommends checking your local code and/or ordinances regarding any bonding requirements that may apply to the mayor. Additionally, any officer designated to sign the checks, warrants, or initiate an electronic payment must have an official bond. The amount should be determined by the city but cannot be less than $50,000. See RCW 42.24.180(1), which states:

The auditing officer and the officer designated to sign the checks or warrants shall each be required to furnish an official bond for the faithful discharge of his or her duties in an amount determined by the legislative body but not less than fifty thousand dollars[.] [emphasis added]

If the mayor signs checks or warrants, they should be bonded.

The State Auditor’s Office (SAO) website has a page on Bond Coverage for Public Officials and Employees that states that:

[a] reasonable amount of bond coverage will vary with the size and financial activities of each local government. In determining the amount of coverage needed the insurance broker, legal counsel and other municipalities should be consulted when determining the amount of coverage needed.

In some cases, the fidelity coverage provided by a city’s risk pool membership or insurance policy should be sufficient to serve as the “bond” required by statute. MRSC recommends checking with them to see what is covered under the city’s policy.

For more information, see our page on Official Bonds and Oaths of Office.

MRSC also recommends discussing this matter with your agency attorney who will be in the best position to advise further. Our guidance is general and not a substitute for the advice of legal counsel.

Yes, the outgoing mayor can swear in/administer the oath of office to the newly elected mayor in a code city (or any type of city or town). See the section “Who Can Administer the Oath of Office?” on our Official Bonds and Oaths of Office page. Among those officials who are authorized to administer the oath is a mayor:

Mayor or clerk of a code city: RCW 35A.21.030. This authority applies to all code cities regardless of structure, so the ceremonial mayor of a council-manager code city can administer official oaths just like the separately elected mayor of a mayor-council city.

See also our blog post, The Oath of Office for Local Elected Officials (2025).

MRSC has the following on-demand webinars (see under the “leadership” category). They are available for a fee except for those marked “FREE” below:

• Successfully Managing Change in the Workplace
• Building and Repairing Trust at Work
• Embracing Conflict at Work
• Building a Great Workplace Culture in a Time of Change
• Building the Foundations of a Great Workplace Culture
• Coaching your Staff to Reach their Potential
• FREE: Better Management Through Values-Based Leadership
• FREE: Using Lean Visual Management to Improve Team Engagement

We also have blog articles in the following categories:

• Leadership and Management
• Administrative and Elected Officials

The Department of Enterprise Services (DES) has several trainings under Leadership, Personal & Professional Development, and Program & Project Management.

Finally, the Association of Washington Cities (AWC), Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC), the Washington City Managers Association (WCMA), and various other local government/special district organizations also offer trainings relevant to local government leadership development.

There is a one-year qualification requirement for council members in code cities at RCW 35A.12.030. There is no similar requirement for towns. Generally, it is enough to be a registered voter and reside in the town at the time of appointment to a vacancy or filing for candidacy.

For towns, the state law authority in RCW 35.27.080 provides:

No person shall be eligible to or hold an elective office in a town unless he or she is a resident and registered voter in the town.

To be a registered voter a person must be at least 18 years old, a citizen, and not currently incarcerated for a felony. So, there is not a length of residency requirement for towns such as the one-year requirement for non-charter code cities that you have noted in your question. It may be that for filling town council vacancies your council has a local practice of favoring those with at least a year of residency in the town when making appointments of otherwise qualified persons to vacancies. However, there may be other local history about how this practice has come about. At least in state law, there is not such a residency requirement for towns.

MRSC has a webpage, Running for Local Elected Office, which offers comprehensive resources about running for local elected offices, including for positions on a governing body (e.g., city council, county commission, fire district board) and for executive positions (e.g., mayor, county auditor, sheriff). This webpage includes the eligibility requirements for qualified candidates.

As noted on this page, in order to hold any elective public office in Washington State, a person must meet the qualifications in RCW 42.04.020 and RCW 29A.24.075 and be an "elector" (as defined in the Washington State Constitution, Article VI, Section 1) of the city, county, or special purpose district in which they are running for office.

Yes, a local government agency can set up Facebook to essentially act like a bulletin board where only designated local government staff are allowed to post. This is considered “government speech” and does not require you to take steps to provide the public with First Amendment speech opportunities.

That said, MRSC recommends that local governments establish a social media policy that sets these parameters and clearly states that there is no intent to create a public forum. See the following MRSC resources:

• Speaking Versus Regulating — The Government Speech Doctrine (2022)
• Social Media Policies
• Social Media Policy Questions for Local Governments to Answer (2023)
• Addressing Free Speech in your Social Media Comment Policy (2016)

Personnel policies do not typically apply to elected officials as elected officials are not considered employees for most purposes. And, as a practical matter, since most policies in an employee handbook don’t naturally apply to elected officials, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to make the entirety of the handbook applicable to the legislative body. A general personnel policy might state that elected officials are eligible for certain benefits. For instance, Benton County in Section 8.2 of its Personnel Policies and Procedures states the elected officials are eligible for insurance benefits.

You may be interested in the following MRSC resources:

• Salaries, Compensation, and Benefits for Local Elected Officials
• Elected Officials and Benefits Programs (2023)

Additionally, councils and commissions typically have their own Rules of Procedure for Local Government Governing Bodies and/or rules of conduct. They may also be bound by Local Codes of Ethics.

There are no term limits set forth in state law for local elected officials such as mayors, councilmembers, and county commissioners. There are nevertheless some local governments that have adopted ordinances providing term limits for these elected officials. Note, however, that not all local governments have authority to impose term limits. A 1991 opinion of the Attorney General,  AGO 1991 No. 22, concluded that charter counties, charter cities, and non-charter code cities have authority to adopt term limits, whereas towns, second class cities, and non-charter counties do not. Charter counties, charter cities, and non-charter code cities have “home rule authority” which means they have broader legislative powers in matters of local concern than towns, second-class cities, and non-charter counties (for more information on “home rule,” see the Seattle University Law Review article, “Home Rule” vs. “Dillon’s Rule” for Washington Cities).

MRSC does not have a comprehensive list of all the local governments in Washington State that have adopted term limits, but here are some examples: 

• Edgewood Municipal Code Sec. 2.10.015 – See term limits for mayor.
• Port Angeles Municipal Code Sec. 2.02.010 – See term limits for city council. The city has term limits for other boards, commissions, and committees, including the Public Safety Advisory Board (see Sec. 2.26.030) and Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (see Sec. 2.70.030).
• Spokane City Charter Article II – See Section 6 on qualifications for elected officials.
• Tacoma City Charter – See Article II, The Legislative Branch. Section 2.1 includes terms for city council, Section 2.3 includes terms for citizen commission on elected salaries, Section 2.4 includes terms for the mayor, Section 3.8 includes terms for planning commission, with additional terms listed in other sections.

Additional examples can be found through a Code Publishing site Google search, including examples of terms for various boards, commissions, and committees in Friday Harbor, Lacy, Lake Forest Park, Oak Harbor, Olympia, Puyallup, Rainier, Sammamish, Sequim, Westport, and Yakima. An additional example from Woodland can be found through a Municode site Google search.

Term limits imposed on state-wide elective offices by initiative were found unconstitutional in Gerberding v. Munro (1998).

No. Neither RCW 35A.13.030 nor RCW 35A.13.190 provide for the mayor of a non-charter council-manager code city to exercise a veto.

It is fairly common for cities to send newsletters to their citizens, although perhaps e-newsletters are more common now. Developing the newsletter content and format would be considered an administrative task and under the purview of the executives (city administrator, mayor), similar to the city website or city social media. Depending on the cost of the newsletter, perhaps the council could look at continuing the newsletter through the budget process or otherwise adopt a policy regarding the city newsletter.

One legal issue to be cautious about regarding city newsletters is the prohibition on using agency facilities for campaigns. So, the newsletter should not be used to support or oppose a candidate or a ballot proposition (unless it’s an objective and fair presentation of the facts relevant to the ballot proposition, and such action is part of the normal and regular conduct of the office or agency). See RCW 42.17A.555.

Update: Effective January 1, 2026, RCW 42.17A.555 has been recodified as RCW 29B.45.010.

The board will need to include a nominated candidate or candidates in the official notice of vacancy. SSB 5437, which took effect on July 23, 2023, sets forth the new process most special purpose districts (including public hospital districts) are required to follow when filling a commissioner vacancy. Section 2 of the bill, codified at RCW 42.12.080, requires the remaining members of the governing body to nominate a candidate (or candidates) to fill the vacancy at a meeting of the district prior to issuing the notice of vacancy.

In circumstances where the district does not have any candidates in mind to nominate, it would need to solicit applicants prior to nominating a candidate(s) at a meeting and posting the official notice of vacancy pursuant to RCW 42.12.080(2). You could consider it a "call for applicants" followed by an official "notice of vacancy" once the nomination is made at a public meeting. The key will be for the notice of vacancy to include the board’s selected commissioner candidates and then provide an opportunity for registered voters in the district to suggest additional candidates for a period of at least 15 days. Thereafter, the board can select its preferred candidate. The board does not need to hold interviews prior to appointing one of these candidates, but it may do so if it chooses to.

We have examples of vacancy application forms on our Vacancies in Local Elected Offices page.

Whether there is a residency requirement for a particular city committee or commission will be a matter of local policy. RCW 35.21.200 (applicable to code cities) authorizes cities to establish residency requirements for appointed positions. It states:

Any city or town may by ordinance of its legislative authority determine whether there shall be any residential qualifications for any or all of its appointive officials or for preference in employment of its employees, but residence of an employee outside the limits of such city or town shall not be grounds for discharge of any regularly appointed civil service employee otherwise qualified: PROVIDED, That this section shall not authorize a city or town to change any residential qualifications prescribed in any city charter for any appointive official or employee: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That all employees appointed prior to the enactment of any ordinance establishing such residence qualifications as provided herein or who shall have been appointed or employed by such cities or towns having waived such residential requirements shall not be discharged by reason of such appointive officials or employees having established their residence outside the limits of such city or town: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That this section shall not authorize a city or town to change the residential requirements with respect to employees of private public utilities acquired by public utility districts or by the city or town.

We recommend looking at your city code or the ordinance or resolution establishing the committee to determine whether residency requirements have been established. MRSC also has a webpage you may find helpful on Advisory Boards and Commissions.

Yes. A councilmember does not cease being a councilmember by virtue of undertaking the additional duties of pro tempore (pro tem) to conduct a meeting in the absence of the mayor. The mayor pro tem continues to vote as a councilmember and is counted for the purpose of establishing a quorum of the governing body.

RCW 35.27.160 provides, in relevant part, that “[a] mayor pro tempore may be chosen by the council for a specified period of time, not to exceed six months, to act as the mayor in the absence of the mayor.”

RCW 35.27.280 provides that “[a] majority of the councilmembers shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business”. This statute also references the authority for the council to appoint a “president pro tempore” (mayor pro tem) to run a council meeting in the absence of the mayor.

RCW 42.30.110(1)(h) requires that interviews of candidates to fill vacant, elected positions be conducted in an open meeting. (Contrast this with interviews of candidates to fill non-elective office; these can be held in executive session under RCW 42.30.110(1)(g).) Therefore, it is not possible to legally prohibit other candidates for the vacant, elected position from attending the interviews. The OPMA does not have an exception which would allow other candidates to be excluded from the meeting room.

We have previously suggested that the council/commission could ask, but not require, that the other candidates leave the meeting room while the other candidates are being interviewed so as not to give an advantage to candidates interviewed later in the process. If some candidates still remain in the meeting room, that could be a factor considered when selecting who would make a good councilmember/commissioner.

I was unable to find trainings specific to park and recreation districts in Washington State; however, below are some resources that should be helpful:

• State Auditor’s Office (SAO): Technical Advice – Provides technical advice, including a Gov101 series for some special purpose districts, like hospital districts. You could contact them through their Contact SAO page to see if they have other resources/trainings for park and recreation districts.
• Washington Recreation & Park Association (WRPA) – May offer trainings for park and recreation districts and/or know of any.
• MRSC resources:
  • Knowing the Territory: Basic Legal Guidelines for Washington City, County and Special Purpose District Officials (2022) – Includes information on basic powers, potential conflicts and ethical guidelines, competitive bidding requirements, Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), and more for cities, counties, and special purpose districts.
  • Special Purpose Districts in Washington – Serves as a landing page for various MRSC pages on special purpose districts, including Park and Recreation Districts.
  • Comparison of Recreation Districts – Includes a good overview of various laws and functions for park and recreation districts.
  • Training – Includes upcoming events and on-demand trainings, several of which may be applicable to your work.

There are also Public Records Act (PRA) and Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) training requirements applicable to certain officials in public agencies. See RCW 42.30.205 and RCW 42.56.150. For more information, see the below resources:

• MRSC: PRA and OPMA E-Learning Courses
• Washington State Office of the Attorney General: Open Government Training

It depends. Generally, all elected officials and candidates for elected office are required to fill out a financial disclosure form (also known as the F1 form). However, RCW 42.17A.135 exempts “candidates, elected officials, and agencies in political subdivisions with fewer than two thousand registered voters as of the date of the most recent general election in the jurisdiction” unless the candidate receives or expects to receive $5,000 or more in contributions.

There is also an exception in RCW 42.17A.200 for “an office of a political subdivision of the state that does not encompass a whole county and that contains fewer than five thousand registered voters as of the date of the most recent general election in the subdivision, unless required by RCW 42.17A.135 (2) through (5) and (7).”

The Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) has a helpful webpage, Personal Financial Affairs Disclosure, that explains the filing requirements and another one about Enforcement, that talks about the process and possible penalties. Because the PDC is the enforcement agency for this, the district is not responsible for ensuring the commissioners comply with the reporting requirement.

Update: Effective January 1, 2026, RCW 42.17A.135 has been recodified as RCW 29B.20.070 and RCW 42.17A.200 has been recodified as RCW 29B.25.010.

MRSC has a topic page on   Salaries, Compensation, and Benefits for Local Elected Officials that contains a section on waiving salaries.

As the linked page notes, there are specific provisions in state law for some positions, such as fire and port commissioners, but there is not a comparable provision for cities. Nevertheless, many cities do have local policies on the topic. Here is a city example from Stanwood, and a county example from Chelan County:

• Stanwood Ordinance No. 1342 – Waiver of Mayor/Councilmember Salaries (2013) – Allows mayor or councilmembers to voluntarily decline all or a portion of their salaries, with the waived money to be used for general government purposes, unless the individual mayor/councilmember directs that it should be used for a different purpose.
• Chelan County Municipal Code Sec. 1.164.030 – Allows an elected official to voluntarily receive a salary less than that established for their position.

We recommend reviewing the page and any local procedures for waiving or donating one’s salary with the city’s legal counsel.

MRSC has consistently taken the position that “actual attendance” under the district commissioner compensation statutes (RCW 70.44.050) includes remote attendance, whether via video conferencing or via speaker phone, unless your district has adopted a policy that requires attendance in-person.

The Attorney General’s Office issued an opinion a few years ago that concluded a governing body can legally conduct a public meeting via telephone or video conference call so long as the participants can hear, be heard, and participate effectively in the meeting. See AGO 2017 No. 4.

Additionally, the Open Public Meetings Act was amended this year to explicitly allow board member remote attendance so long as it allows real-time verbal communication (RCW 42.30.230). This may still require some action by the district board to consider remote attendance—ideally pursuant to a written policy that sets forth the circumstances under which remote participation will be allowed. But, unless local policy prohibits it, a member should be able to attend a commission meeting via phone or video without it impacting their compensation.