# When Government Goes Behind Closed Doors: A Brief Executive Session on Litigation Strategy ## Meeting Overview On Tuesday afternoon, April 29, 2025, six members of the Whatcom County Council gathered in the familiar chambers of the County Courthouse for what would prove to be one of the briefest public meetings of the year. The Committee of the Whole-Executive Session convened at 1:02 p.m., but within three minutes, the doors were effectively closed to the public as the council entered executive session to discuss pending litigation. Council Chair Kaylee Galloway presided over the hybrid meeting, with five other councilmembers present: Barry Buchanan, Tyler Byrd, Ben Elenbaas, Jon Scanlon, and Mark Stremler. Notably absent was Todd Donovan, leaving the council one member short of its full complement. The meeting represented a glimpse into one of local government's most opaque but necessary functions—discussing legal strategy away from public view. This was not a meeting where policy would be debated or public testimony heard. Instead, it was a carefully orchestrated legal consultation, conducted under the strict confidentiality provisions of Washington State's Open Public Meetings Act. The single agenda item would take the council behind closed doors to discuss a complex civil lawsuit that somehow intersected with county interests. ## The Litigation at the Heart of Closed-Door Discussions The sole substantive matter before the council was agenda item AB2025-336, concerning the case of Gerald T. Osborn v. Peacehealth and multiple individual defendants. The lawsuit, filed in Skagit County Superior Court under case number 24-2-00056-29, involves a web of healthcare-related defendants including Peacehealth (a prominent regional healthcare system), various mental health professionals, and several "John Does and Jane Does" yet to be identified. Civil Deputy Prosecutor Jesse Corkern was present to brief the council on the litigation, joined by Kim Thulin, another attorney advising the county. The specific nature of Whatcom County's involvement in this Skagit County case was not disclosed in the public documents, as is typical with matters heading into executive session. The case name suggests Mr. Osborn is bringing claims against Peacehealth and a constellation of healthcare providers, including licensed mental health professionals (Carol Austin, LMFT), psychologists (Nate Reiss, PhD), mental health practitioners (N. Stender, MHP, H. Vogel, MHP), physicians (N. Saina, MD, Philip Frank, DO), and at least one attorney (Patrick Lackie, JD). The diversity of defendants suggests this could involve complex medical malpractice, mental health treatment issues, or institutional healthcare policies. ## A Swift Transition to Secrecy The procedural mechanics of entering executive session unfolded with practiced efficiency. Chair Galloway announced that discussion would take place in executive session pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i), the section of Washington's Open Public Meetings Act that allows closed sessions for discussing pending litigation with legal counsel when public discussion would be likely to result in adverse legal or financial consequences to the agency. Tyler Byrd moved to enter executive session until no later than 1:15 p.m., with Mark Stremler providing the second. The motion carried by a 5-0 vote, with Barry Buchanan apparently stepping out of the meeting during the vote and Todd Donovan remaining absent. Chair Galloway made clear that the council did not anticipate taking any formal action following the executive session—a standard announcement that helps establish the session's legitimacy under state law. At 1:05 p.m., just three minutes after the meeting began, the councilmembers entered executive session. The public was excluded, cameras turned off if they were recording, and the real business of the afternoon began in confidential discussion with their legal advisors. ## The Black Box of Legal Strategy What transpired during those eleven minutes behind closed doors remains, by law and design, confidential. Executive sessions exist precisely because some government functions—particularly those involving legal strategy, personnel matters, or real estate negotiations—require candid discussion that could be compromised by public disclosure. In litigation matters, this protection serves important purposes. Discussing legal strategy in public could tip off opposing counsel to the government's approach, reveal confidential attorney-client communications, or compromise settlement negotiations. The ability to speak frankly with legal counsel about the strengths and weaknesses of a case, potential exposure, and strategic options is essential to responsible governance. For the public, however, executive sessions represent one of the few remaining black boxes in local government. Citizens can see that their elected officials are consulting with attorneys about a case, but cannot know what advice was given, what concerns were raised, or what the county's potential liability might be. This tension between transparency and necessary confidentiality is one of the enduring challenges in government accountability. ## A Meeting That Lasted Exactly as Long as Planned The executive session concluded precisely at 1:16 p.m., running just one minute past the announced 1:15 p.m. target. This punctuality suggests the legal briefing was focused and efficient—either the matter was straightforward or the attorneys had prepared a concise presentation of the key issues. Chair Galloway did not need to make a public announcement about extending the session, as she had indicated she would if the discussion ran long. The council returned to public session only long enough to handle the remaining agenda items, which proved to be minimal. ## Routine Business and Adjournment With the litigation discussion complete, the meeting's remaining business was perfunctory. There were no items added by revision to the agenda, and no other business to conduct. The entire public portion of the meeting—the call to order, roll call, motion to enter executive session, and final adjournment—lasted less than five minutes total. The meeting adjourned at 1:16 p.m., making this one of the shortest council sessions on record. For most attendees, virtual or in-person, there was little to observe beyond the basic procedural mechanics of entering and exiting executive session. ## The Transparency Paradox This brief executive session illustrates one of the fundamental paradoxes of open government: sometimes transparency requires temporary opacity. The council's legal consultation was conducted entirely within the bounds of state law, with proper notice, appropriate legal justification, and minimal time in closed session. Yet for citizens interested in county affairs, such meetings offer little insight into how their government operates or what challenges it faces. The Osborn v. Peacehealth litigation obviously carries enough significance for county interests that it warranted a dedicated executive session with legal counsel, but the public record provides no clues about the county's role or exposure. The meeting minutes, approved by the full council on May 13, 2025, capture the procedural elements but necessarily omit any substance from the executive session. This creates a permanent public record that documents the fact of the legal consultation while preserving the confidentiality that made the consultation possible. ## Looking Forward As with all executive sessions involving pending litigation, the ultimate resolution of these matters may eventually become public through court filings, settlement announcements, or future council actions. The Gerald T. Osborn case in Skagit County will continue to wind through the courts, and if Whatcom County's involvement becomes more significant, it may surface in future public meetings. For now, however, this April 29 executive session stands as a brief but necessary exercise in the confidential side of public governance—a reminder that even in an era of increasing transparency, some government functions still require the privacy that allows for frank legal counsel and strategic planning. The council received the legal briefing it needed, conducted its business efficiently, and returned to the public arena where most of its work continues to unfold in full view of the citizens it serves.