Ask MRSC - Public Meetings & OPMA

Probably not. The OPMA’s open public meeting requirements apply to governing body meetings involving action. RCW 42.30.020(3) broadly defines “action” as transacting official agency business, and it includes things like governing body “considerations,” “discussions,” and “reviews.” Required OPMA training is within the agency’s official business, and it arguably involves governing body members considering, discussing and reviewing the training information and materials they receive.

The Citizens Alliance (2015) case holds that governing bodies do not violate the OPMA by passively receiving information. But members of a governing body are perhaps unlikely to stay completely silent during required OPMA training with no questions, discussions, etc. (and in any event doing so may further defeat the training’s purpose). RCW 42.30.110 also sets forth permitted executive session bases which do not include receiving general legal training.

Based on the above, OPMA training sessions attended by a governing body quorum or more should be held in public session. Alternatively, agencies can give non-public training sessions to the governing body members in sub-quorum groups or individually. RCW 42.30.205(3) allows for remote and internet-based training that might make it easier to facilitate separate training sessions.

Even though it’s only advisory to the city council the task force’s taking public comment can subject it to the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), but only if it is a committee of a governing body (like the city council). See RCW 42.30.020(2).

If the mayor formed the task force with no city council input or direction, and it answers only to the mayor, it is less likely a city council committee subject to the OPMA. On the other hand, the OPMA will more likely apply if the mayor formed this task force at the city council’s request or direction and/or if the council is empowered to oversee or direct the task force’s work. Having committees comply with the OPMA is the safest course in uncertain cases.

The city attorney should ultimately review this task force’s formation and work to determine whether it qualifies as a city council committee subject to the OPMA.

No. The provision at RCW 42.30.070 in the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) related to establishing a regular meeting schedule merely requires appropriate legislation (an ordinance, since this is a city) establishing the schedule. The adoption of an ordinance does not require a public hearing unless a specific statute directs it (e.g., for budget adoption or to adopt development regulations). The city could choose to hold a public hearing for transparency purposes, but it isn’t required. The ordinance amending the schedule would also be on the meeting agenda and the public will have an opportunity to provide public comment before final action (see RCW 42.30.240).

Shared documents pose a problem for legislative bodies because of OPMA concerns. It is perfectly OK for a quorum of the body to view the same document outside of a public meeting (this is a passive receipt of information). However, because an action under the OPMA includes “discussion,” once a quorum starts commenting/viewing the other members’ changes to a shared document, there is a problem.

To be a “meeting” under the OPMA, (1) a majority of the legislative body “meets,” (2) with the collective intent to transact official business, (3) and during the “meeting,” the members took “action” as defined by the OPMA— which includes discussions or deliberations. MRSC has a blog post, What Constitutes a Serial Meeting under the OPMA?, that provides more information on the “collective intent” to transact official business.

MRSC’s assessment is that if all members of the governing body are aware that the other members have access to the same document, and the members shared comments on the document, there would be OPMA concerns.

Here are some alternative ideas:

• Allow less than a quorum to access and comment on the shared document (and do not let the remainder of the members see those changes until the meeting).
• Rather than allowing a quorum to comment and view others’ comments on a shared document, allow each member to share their comments with staff, which staff can then consolidate and share at the open public meeting (but not before).

Generally, no. RCW 42.30.070, which is the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) provision that requires the schedule for regular meetings to be set by ordinance, resolution, or bylaw, states that: “If at any time any regular meeting falls on a holiday, such regular meeting shall be held on the next business day.”

If the governing body decided to hold that meeting on a different date besides the next business day, they could either cancel the regular meeting and reschedule it as a special meeting pursuant to RCW 42.30.080, or adjourn the regular meeting to the later time following the procedures at RCW 42.30.090.

Here is a blog post that explains the process for either adjourning (i.e., rescheduling) or canceling a public meeting, Best Laid Plans: Following the OPMA When Adjourning or Canceling a Public Meeting (2023). And here is a blog on special meetings, Special Meetings: Answering Some Frequently Asked Questions (2024).

There is no state law requirement for public comments to be read aloud at a public meeting. There is also no state law that would prevent a public comment from being read aloud during a public meeting. Whether a comment is read aloud or not is a matter of local discretion.

The Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), RCW 42.30.240, only requires governing bodies to provide an opportunity for public comment at or before every regular meeting at which final action will be taken. Public comment may be taken orally at the meeting or by providing an opportunity for written testimony to be submitted before or at the meeting. RCW 42.30.240(1) requires that “[i]f the governing body accepts written testimony, this testimony must be distributed to the governing body.”

Some governing bodies prohibit the reading aloud of public comment since this could take a significant amount of time and it is sufficient for the governing body to review the comments themselves. Either way, we highly suggest whatever policy your council adopts is equally afforded to all public comments received.

Below are some examples:

• Bothell City Council Protocol Manual (2023) – See Sec. 8.07, Order of Business- Regular Meetings. It states the following: “Written comments will be submitted into the record. A copy of the document will be provided to each Councilmember; the document will not be read aloud.”
• Poulsbo City Council Rules of Procedure (2011) – See Sec. 7.6, Written Communications. It establishes the following: “Interested parties, or their authorized representatives, may address the Council by written communication in regard to any matter concerning the city's business or over which the Council had control at any time. The written communication may be submitted by direct mail or by addressing the communication to the City Clerk who will distribute copies to the Council members. The communication will be entered into the record without the necessity for reading as long as sufficient copies are distributed to members of the audience/public.”
• Spokane Valley Governance Manual (2025) – See Ch. 1 Sec. C, Meeting Rules and Procedures, 1(b). It provides the following on written comments: “Citizens have the option of submitting written views, opinions, comments, data, and arguments to Council on any topic and at any time, not just prior to or during public Council meetings. Unless the Mayor asks the clerk to read written mailed or emailed comments, or the citizen reads their own prepared written comments, such comments shall not be read aloud during regular or special Council meetings although they shall be included as part of the public record on the topic and if appropriate, may be publicly acknowledged. Any written comments submitted to Council via the city clerk shall be distributed to Council by placing copies at each Councilmember's workstation or city desk; or in the case of emailed or other electronic comments, shall be forwarded to Council via email, unless such email has already been supplied to members of Council. If individual Councilmembers receive written (including electronic) public comments or materials for the purpose of reading/sharing those materials during Council meetings, those materials should be submitted to the city clerk prior to the Council meeting so the clerk can make copies for later distribution to members of Council.”

For additional resources regarding public comment, please see MRSC’s FAQs on Meeting Procedures, as well as Jurassic Parliament’s 50 Guidelines for Public Comment (2023).

We also recommend that you discuss this matter with your city attorney who will be in the best position to advise you further. Our guidance is general and not a substitute for the advice of the city’s legal counsel.

Here are some examples:

• Port of Grapeview Bylaws (2023) – See Article IV, no. 7, Absences (p. 3 of the pdf).
• Port of Longview Rules of Procedure (2024) – See Article IV, L, Commissioner Absence and Excusal (p. 9 of the pdf).
• Port of Olympia Rules of Procedure (2024) – See Article IV, L, Commissioner Absence and Excusal (p. 7 of the pdf).
• Port of Seattle Commission Bylaws and Rules of Procedure (2025) – See Article V(3), Excusing absences (p. 25 of the pdf).

For additional information, see the section on Unexcused Absences on our Vacancies in Local Elected Offices page.

State law requires minutes to be taken at regular and special meetings. See RCW 42.30.035. There are no provisions in state law that set forth the level of detail required in meeting minutes. At a minimum, the minutes should reflect the actions taken at the meeting. Beyond that, a public agency may determine how much detail should be in the meeting minutes. This is a matter of local discretion.

So, whether the names and addresses appear in the minutes is a question of policy —there is no law requiring or prohibiting it. If an agency has not addressed the issue, it would be up to whomever is taking the minutes. As a practical and policy matter, the agency may not want to include both the names and addresses in minutes, as some residents may not want that information in the public record. Alternatively, just the name could be included and no address.

Normally, one would expect minutes to show the fact that a member of the public spoke or submitted written materials to the public agency. For example, “John Doe spoke during the public comment period” or “Jane Doe submitted a letter to the Council.” One would not expect the public comments or the written materials themselves to be part of the minutes. See the Jurassic Parliament website for several helpful articles on meeting minutes, as well as the section on Meeting Minutes on our Council/Commission Meetings page.

MRSC advises that a majority of the council can likely communicate to schedule a special meeting without violating the OPMA given that the law explicitly states that a “majority of the members” can call a special meeting. Our analysis is reviewed in this blog article, Special Meetings: Answering Some Frequently Asked Questions (2024). Please note the recommended procedures for communicating discussed in the blog.

We encourage you to review this analysis with your agency attorney who can provide specific legal advice given the specific factual circumstances.

In general, unless a statute requires proof of publication, it is a matter of local policy how this information is tracked/obtained. When a state statute requires that the city or town obtain an affidavit of publication, then you need to get the official affidavit from the newspaper pursuant to RCW 65.16.030.

That statute defines “proof of publication” to be “the affidavit of the printer, publisher, foreman, principal clerk or business manager of the newspaper which published such notice.” The only statutes we are aware of that require an “affidavit” of publication on file are:

• RCW 35.68.050 (sidewalks): “Proof of mailing and publication shall be made by affidavit and shall be filed with the city clerk […]”
• RCW 35.73.030 (changing street grade): “Proof of publication by affidavit shall be filed as part of the record of proceedings.”

Otherwise, RCW 65.16.030 (regarding affidavits of publication) does not require a city or town to have such affidavits routinely on file. Instead, a city or town can choose to request an affidavit of publication from the newspaper when necessary.

There are some situations when a city or town should obtain affidavits of publication, even if they are not legally required. For example, during the formation of a local improvement district, bond counsel will want to have copies of the affidavits of publication in their file so they can verify that all of the required steps were followed. Likewise, any time that the city or town wants to be able to demonstrate that the proper notice procedures were followed for a particular action.

We recommend that you discuss this issue with your agency’s attorney as well.

HB 1105, codified at RCW 42.30.250, became effective on June 6, 2024, and provides:

(1) A public agency that is required by state law to solicit public comment for a statutorily specified period of time, and is required by state law to provide notice that it is soliciting public comment, must specify the first and last date and time by which written public comment may be submitted.

(2) An agency that provides a notice that violates this section is subject to the same fines under the same procedures as other violations of this chapter are subject to under RCW 42.30.120.

Our understanding is that the new law only applies in those situations where state law requires an agency to solicit comment for a specified period of time (e.g., 14 or 30 days). It would not apply to situations where state law requires public comment but doesn’t provide a timeframe for those comments. For example, it would not apply to general public comment at council or board meetings as required by RCW 42.30.240 (“…a public agency shall provide an opportunity at or before every regular meeting at which final action is taken for public comment.”). Likewise, it would not apply to a statute like RCW 35A.14.472 (addressing interlocal agreements between a city and county for annexing unincorporated territory in the UGA), which requires a public comment opportunity but doesn’t include a statutorily specified period of time. We also don’t think that the law applies where the local code specifies a time period for notice, but state law does not. The local government could but would not be required to provide the beginning and end date of public comment in its notice.

Here is an Association of Washington Cities (AWC) piece that describes the new law. That article states, in part:

The one bill of note that passed was HB 1105, regarding posting of public comment periods, initially introduced in 2023. The original version of the bill created concerns, but AWC worked with the sponsor to narrowly tailor the bill to get the intended effect without negative unintended consequences. As it passed, the bill requires a city or other agency to post the specific calendar dates for a public comment period when the amount of time is identified in statute. For example, if there is a statutory requirement to have public comment open for 30 days on a land use issue, then the notice would require the exact calendar date (e.g., April 30) when the public comment period ends, so the public is less likely to misunderstand when their window closes.

Finally, this new requirement applies to any governing body, committee, or subagency that is subject to the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), as the bill amends Chapter 42.30 RCW.

Yes, the councilmember acting as mayor pro tem continues to count toward a quorum and retains all the powers/privileges of their position on the council—including the ability to vote and accept/reject motions. They are temporarily the presiding officer rather than the elected mayor during the mayor’s absence—but they still retain their council authority. See RCW 35.27.280. The mayor pro tem will also have all the powers of the mayor in the mayor’s absence. See RCW 35.27.160.

MRSC’s position is that members of a governing body can vote to approve minutes even if they did not attend the meeting for which they are approving minutes. There is no law that prohibits members from voting to approve minutes for a meeting they did not attend.

While it may seem irregular for members to vote on something of which they have no knowledge, we think, as a practical matter, that members who did not attend the meeting would defer to those who did and vote along with them (whether to approve or to amend the minutes). Of course, if members do not feel comfortable voting to approve minutes for a meeting they did not attend, then those members may certainly abstain from voting.

Robert’s Rules of Order (Section 41, page 355) recognizes the right of absent members to vote on minutes: “It should be noted that a member’s absence from the meeting for which minutes are being approved does not prevent the member from participating in their correction or approval.”

We don’t think it would meet the statutory requirements for a special meeting notice to simply include a QR code that links to the business to be transacted. Certainly, a QR code could be included on the notice that links to the agenda and additional information, but the notice itself would need to include all the required information set forth for the special meeting notice at RCW 42.30.080. Specifically, the notice “shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted.”

The “business to be transacted” does not necessarily need to be a full agenda but should identify the general business intended to be addressed at the meeting. And no final disposition may be taken on any matter not identified on the notice.

Keep in mind that not everyone has smart phones or the technological understanding of QR codes to utilize them. So, excluding required information from the posted notice could result in a lack of access for some.

Here is a blog post that may be helpful: Special Meetings: Answering Some Frequently Asked Questions (2024).

How an agency receives and maintains records received at a public meeting will be largely a matter of local policy. However, here is some guidance to consider.

From a records retention perspective, an agency only needs to keep one “record” copy of the documents for retention purposes. While the meeting minutes should reflect that records were received, copies of the records do not need to be attached to the official minutes. Since many agencies post their minutes online, not automatically including attachments keeps the minutes smaller and gives the agency the option to not “re-publish” material that may or may not be relevant to agency business just because someone handed it out.

Further, if an agency chooses to include them as part of the minutes, the retention requirements applicable to minutes would apply. If not attached to the minutes, then the agency would look to the individual record to determine the applicable retention period.

MRSC generally takes the position that proxy and absentee voting is not allowed under Washington law for local governments and special purpose districts. The definition of action in the OPMA in RCW 42.30.020(3) includes the term “actual vote.” Casting a vote prior to an open public meeting would constitute action outside an open public meeting. Note, however, that if a member attends a meeting remotely, we count this the same as if they were physically present for purposes of quorum and voting. The OPMA was amended in 2022 to confirm that a member of a governing body may attend a meeting remotely. See RCW 42.30.230(5).

We are not aware of any court decisions that have addressed the issue of proxy voting in the context of local governments or special purpose districts. Absentee voting is addressed in AGO 51-53 No. 283 in the context of a school district board member. There, the attorney general concluded:

We are therefore of the opinion that a member of the board of directors of a first class school district must be personally present in order to participate in the proceedings of a meeting of such a board, and that the written statement transmitted by the absent member to the meeting of the Richland School Board held March 24, 1952, was ineffective for any purpose in connection with the action of the board taken at that meeting.

Ultimately, the legal staff at MRSC doesn’t think a member of a legislative body can “attend” a meeting by proxy and cannot count towards establishing a quorum by proxy. In addition, we are not aware of any legal authority for an official to exercise a proxy vote on behalf of another official, even if the body had previously adopted a rule allowing proxy voting. It appears that where proxy voting is deemed permissible, such as in corporate settings, it is specifically authorized in state law and established in that corporation’s bylaws. We have indicated that there is no express or implied authorization in state law for proxy or absentee voting by members of a local governing body.

Also, Robert’s Rules of Order strongly disfavors absentee and proxy voting: “proxy voting is incompatible with the essential characteristics of a deliberative assembly in which membership is individual, personal, and nontransferable” (RR 45:70). “It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a regular or properly called meeting” (RR 45:56).

There is no law that requires the Pledge of Allegiance to be recited at any public meeting. It is a matter of local discretion by the council. If a council has already adopted rules regarding the reciting of the Pledge, those should be followed. If not, the council could adopt rules regarding the Pledge.

Keep in mind that there is an older Washington case on religion, Bolling v. Superior Court (1943), which involved a case in which Jehovah’s Witnesses protested a requirement that children recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The court held that it was unconstitutional to require the children to recite the Pledge at school. However, the court did not invalidate having the Pledge of Allegiance recited at public events, but merely indicated that no individual is required to recite it. Likewise, at a council meeting there should be no requirement that everyone recite the Pledge or other invocation.

You may find examples of Pledge of Allegiance policies within various Council/Board of Commissioners Rules of Procedure (see several examples on this page). For additional information on the legal landscape related to prayers/invocations as well as the Pledge of Allegiance at public meetings, see also our blog article, Prayer & Pledges—Should You or Shouldn’t You?.

Regarding regular and special meetings of the council, the only requirement under the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) is to post a preliminary agenda online at least 24 hours in advance for regular meetings (see RCW 42.30.077) and to provide a meeting notice at least 24 hours in advance for a special meeting that specifies the time and place of the meeting and the business to be transacted (see RCW 42.30.080).

In general (although see caveat below), there is no state law requirement to provide a council packet or materials pertinent to an action to the public prior to the council taking final action. However, there may be local rules about making a council packet available to the public prior to the meeting.

In addition, certain legislative and quasi-judicial actions of the council may require that notice and/or information be made available to the public prior to the action occurring. I do not have an exhaustive list of the actions for which specific notice and/or information must be provided, but some examples include the notice associated with a street vacation (see RCW 35.79.020), notice associated with municipal annexations (see, e.g., RCW 35A.14.130), and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) threshold determinations on certain project and non-project actions (see Chapter 43.21C RCW). I recommend consulting with your city attorney if you have questions about any specific action of the council to see what type of notice and information must be made available.

Neither RCW 57.08.005(11) nor RCW 57.08.081, related to the district’s authority to establish rates, require any advance notice or a public hearing for a rate change. There may be locally adopted district rules or policies related to the board’s adoption of new rates—so any district should consult its local rules.

It depends on the policy and whether it is the type of subject matter that is within the council’s jurisdiction or the mayor’s jurisdiction. But most policies should be adopted by the council – like personnel, public records, code enforcement priorities, etc. There may be certain administrative procedures that the council does not need to formally approve, but we defer to your city attorney to give advice on specific policies.

For more, please see our page on Roles and Responsibilities of Local Government Leaders. Most policies can be adopted by the council via resolution, but sometimes the council may decide they want to adopt the policy into the city code. For example, a code enforcement priority policy is often adopted into code.

Regardless of the title given, if the gathering meets the definition of a “meeting” under the Open Public Meetings Act (whether a regular or special meeting), then minutes are required to be taken.

The Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) at RCW 42.30.035(1) provides:

The minutes of all regular and special meetings except executive sessions of such boards, commissions, agencies or authorities shall be promptly recorded and such records shall be open to public inspection.

Minutes need not be more than action minutes, but even simple action minutes indicate when discussion is had on certain topics or which reports were received from staff. For more on action minutes, see our blog post, Less Is More: Action Minutes Save Time, Serve the Agency Best. The blog post provides a list of items that would typically be included in action minutes:

• Name of governing body and meeting location
• Times at which the meeting started and ended
• Which members of the governing body were present, which were absent (and if a quorum of the body was present — suggested but not required)
• Which members of the agency staff were present
• Text of all main motions taken up by the body and their disposition (passed, failed, referred to committee, etc.)
• If amendments were made, final version of motion as amended
• Any Points of Order or Appeals & their resolution

For more on minutes, see MRSC’s Council/Commission Meeting page.

There is no requirement in the OPMA that you read public comments out loud or include them in your minutes. As we note in last year’s blog HB 1329: Answers to Your OPMA Questions, the OPMA only requires that you provide the opportunity for public comment. It does not require that you read public comments out loud.

Also, RCW 42.30.035 only requires the governing body to have minutes. It does not specify what those minutes must contain. MRSC (as well as the Washington Municipal Clerks Association) recommends “action minutes.” These reflect the agenda items, who moved (and seconded) any action, and what that action was. There is no state law requirement to include submitted comments in the minutes. Of course, the board/governing body can choose to require public comment be read into the record—this is a matter of local discretion. The agency does need to retain the comments in accordance with the state retention schedule. And as we note in a recent guest blog from parliamentarian Ann Macfarlane:

Since meeting minutes are subject to disclosure under the PRA, if your agency chooses to include public comment in the minutes, we recommend a summary of the comment period that avoids providing personally identifiable information on individual commenters.

State law does not require that minutes or resolutions be signed. Title 57 RCW (pertaining to water-sewer districts) does not include a signature requirement for minutes or resolutions. The Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA) at RCW 42.30.035 only requires that minutes “shall be promptly recorded and such records shall be open to public inspection.”

Most agencies have a lot of discretion in this regard, including not signing the minutes or resolutions at all. Local rules of procedure will usually designate who, if anyone, should sign minutes or resolutions—it could be the chair, the entire membership of the governing body, or the secretary. The board should follow the local rules re signatures (or waive this requirement, if needed).

Note, there is an informal opinion from our State Attorney General’s Office, AGLO 1972 No. 19, indicating that only after proposed minutes of a meeting have been reviewed by a body and “signed by its officers” in the manner provided for in its procedures do they constitute the “official” record of the previous meeting described therein. Although the AGLO offers this advice, it doesn’t support the advice with any legal authority. Thus, our office has taken the position that the chair’s signature or the board’s signature isn’t statutorily required in minutes.

Yes. Nothing in the Open Public Meetings Act prohibits having more than one public hearing during the same meeting. Make sure you’ve complied with the notice and publication requirements for both of the hearings based on the statute that requires those hearings. (A non-exhaustive list of statutory requirements for public hearings is in Appendix C of our Local Ordinances for Washington Cities and Counties publication). Also consider a script for your presiding officer that clearly has them open and close (or continue/keep the record open for) each of the public hearings.

The statutes governing public hospital districts are silent as to frequency or number of meetings. Instead, the board of commissioners establishes its own schedule for meetings.

RCW 70.44.050 provides, in relevant part:

The commission shall organize by election of its own members of a president and secretary, shall by resolution adopt rules governing the transaction of its business and shall adopt an official seal. All proceedings of the commission shall be by motion or resolution recorded in a book or books kept for such purpose, which shall be public records.

And the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), applicable to all governing bodies of public agencies in the state, includes the following regarding regular meetings in RCW 42.30.070

The governing body of a public agency shall provide the time for holding regular meetings by ordinance, resolution, bylaws, or by whatever other rule is required for the conduct of business by that body.

Likewise, the AWPHD Legal Manual does not reference any requirements related to meeting frequency or timing. For a discussion on this, see Meetings and Agendas of PHD commissioners (p. 19/p. 30 of the PDF).

Therefore, one should look at adopted rules or bylaws for the particular public hospital district. Those rules will dictate the PHD Board of Commissioner’s meeting schedule.

The Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) specifically addresses notices of special meetings but makes no mention of agendas for special meetings. For special meetings, a notice must be posted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting and must “specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted.” Final action may only be taken on items listed in the notice. See RCW 42.30.080.

There is a relatively new requirement in the OPMA that agendas of regular meetings be available online 24 hours in advance, however there is not a similar requirement for special meetings. But even for regular meetings, the statute allows those posted agendas to be subsequently amended. See RCW 42.30.077.

While a governing body is limited to taking final action only on items listed in the special meeting notice, it can certainly take up other items for discussion as reflected in an amended agenda, since this is merely “action”. However, we recommend this be done infrequently in light of the intent of the OPMA.

Additionally, note that in a 2023 Washington Supreme Court decision, In the Matter of the Recall of Bird, the court found (in the context of sufficiency of a recall petition) that the notice for the special meeting did not adequately describe the action to be taken at the meeting and therefore, the vote on a motion at that meeting violated the OPMA.

For additional information on special meetings, see our 2013 blog post: What Can You Do at a Special Meeting?

Washington law requires local governments (including special districts) to prepare meeting minutes, but it does not address who signs them. RCW 42.30.035 simply provides:

The minutes of all regular and special meetings except executive sessions of such boards, commissions, agencies or authorities shall be promptly recorded and such records shall be open to public inspection.

Therefore, local governments may establish their own procedures for approval of the minutes. It is very common for minutes to be signed by the presiding officer. And technically, the minutes do not need to be signed at all if it can be shown that the minutes were approved by the Board in open session. So, there is a lot of flexibility for local governments with respect to who signs the minutes. Having the minutes signed by all members present at the time of approval is one of several options.

MRSC’s position is that state law does not require written submittals to be included in the meeting minutes. RCW 42.30.035 requires minutes to be kept and made available to the public. RCW 35A.12.110 (for code cities) also requires that a “journal of all proceedings shall be kept, which shall be a public record.” Neither of these statutes require minutes to be kept in any specific form.

MRSC shares the general opinion of the Washington Municipal Clerk’s Association and noted parliamentarian Ann Macfarlane that “action minutes” is the better practice. For a more detailed explanation, see her blog post Less Is More: Action Minutes Serve the City Best.

This does not mean the city just throws away the documents. Items submitted as written testimony (such as what you describe) are required to be kept for six years after the end of the calendar year in which they were submitted, then transferred to the Washington State archives for permanent retention. See the Local Government Retention Schedule (p. 40).

We defer to your city attorney to advise you on the city’s specific practices.