Chapter §22.6 Penalties|Remedies for Violations

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§22.6 PENALTIES/REMEDIES FOR VIOLATIONS

The standing requirements to bring an action for injunctive relief or civil penalties for violation of the Act are "very broad." West v. Seattle Port Comm'n, 194 Wn.App. 821, 826, 380 P.3d 82 (2016); accord West v. Pierce Cnty. Council, 197 Wn.App. 895, 391 P.3d 592 (2017). The Act expressly provides that "any person" can bring a lawsuit for civil penalties or for the purpose of stopping violations or preventing threatened violations of the Act. RCW 42.30.120 (civil penalties); RCW 42.30.130 (mandamus or injunctive relief). These statutes do not require proof of a particular injury or satisfaction of a rigorous standing test. West, 194 Wn.App. at 827.

In both West cases, the Court of Appeals distinguished the Washington Supreme Court's decision in Kirk v. Pierce County Fire Protection District No. 21, 95 Wn.2d 769, 630 P.3d 930 (1981). See West, 197 Wn.App. at 897-99 (Div. II); West, 194 Wn.App. at 827-28 (Div. I). In Kirk, the petitioner sought to void an agency action based on the failure to provide notice of a special meeting to one of the commissioners. 95 Wn.2d at 771-72. In rejecting the petitioner's claim, the court observed that even if the absent commissioner was not properly notified, the petitioner had no standing to raise the matter of improper notice, which could only be raised by the aggrieved commissioner. Id. at 772. Division II noted that Kirk was not analyzed under RCW 42.30.120 or .130, but rather under RCW 42.30.060, providing that any action taken in violation of the Act is null and void. Because RCW 42.30.060 does not authorize "any person" to nullify or invalidate such an action, there was no standing for the petitioner to raise the claim.

(1) Invalidity of action

Any action taken at a meeting held in violation of the OPMA is null and void. See RCW 42.30.060(1). This "statute does not, however, require that subsequent actions taken in compliance with the Act are also invalidated." Org. to Pres. Agric. Lands (OPAL) v. Adams County, 128 Wn.2d 869, 883, 913 P.2d 793 (1996); see Clark v. City of Lakewood, 259 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2001); Eugster v. City of Spokane (Eugster II), 118 Wn.App. 383, 423, 76 P.3d 741 (2003), review denied, 151 Wn.2d 1027 (2004); Heesan Corp. v. City of Lakewood, 118 Wn.App. 341, 357, 75 P.3d 1003 (2003), review denied, 151 Wn.2d 1029 (2004); see also AGO 1971 No. 33, at 40 (Oct. 29, 1971). But, when action taken in open session merely ratifies an action taken...