## Meeting Overview On Tuesday, June 24, 2025, the Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole convened for an executive session at 1:06 p.m. in the County Courthouse's Council Chambers. Council Chair Kaylee Galloway presided over the hybrid meeting, which allowed both in-person attendance and remote participation. All seven council members were present: Barry Buchanan, Tyler Byrd, Todd Donovan, Ben Elenbaas, Kaylee Galloway, Jon Scanlon, and Mark Stremler, though Donovan arrived late. This was a specialized meeting focused entirely on confidential matters requiring closed-door discussion under Washington State's Open Public Meetings Act. Two sensitive items were on the agenda: collective bargaining strategy discussions and pending litigation involving the county. Civil Deputy Prosecutors Jesse Corkern and Christopher Quinn were present to provide legal counsel on both matters. The meeting exemplified the careful balance between government transparency and the practical necessity of confidential deliberation on legal and personnel matters. While executive sessions exclude the public, they are governed by strict statutory requirements that limit what can be discussed and require public notice of the general subject matter. ## Executive Session Protocol and Legal Framework Chair Galloway opened the meeting by carefully stating the legal authority for entering executive session. She announced that discussion of the first agenda item would take place under RCW 42.30.140(4)(a), which permits closed sessions for collective bargaining strategy discussions. The second item would proceed under RCW 42.30.110(1)(i), which allows executive sessions for litigation discussions where public disclosure would likely result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency. This procedural precision reflects the strict requirements of Washington's Open Public Meetings Act, which allows executive sessions only for specifically enumerated purposes and requires public announcement of the legal basis and estimated duration. The council's adherence to these protocols demonstrates the careful legal framework governing when public business can be conducted behind closed doors. Councilmember Scanlon moved to enter executive session until no later than 1:35 p.m., with Buchanan providing the second. The motion carried 6-0, with Donovan absent from the initial roll call but joining the session around 1:21 p.m. The council formally entered executive session at 1:09 p.m. ## Collective Bargaining Strategy Discussion The first item addressed collective bargaining negotiations, a routine but sensitive aspect of county government operations. Under Washington law, public employers are permitted to discuss bargaining strategies in executive session to protect their negotiating position while ensuring that union negotiations don't become public spectacles that could complicate reaching fair agreements. Whatcom County, like most local governments, engages in regular collective bargaining with multiple employee unions representing different classifications of workers, from clerical staff to law enforcement officers. These negotiations typically involve wages, benefits, working conditions, and other terms of employment. The county's approach to these discussions directly impacts both the quality of public services and the county's fiscal position. While the specific details of the discussion remain confidential, the meeting likely involved Civil Deputy Prosecutor Corkern providing legal guidance on negotiation strategies, reviewing the county's legal obligations, and discussing potential approaches to specific bargaining issues. Such sessions often include analysis of comparable wages and benefits in similar jurisdictions, review of the county's fiscal capacity, and strategic planning for upcoming negotiation sessions. ## Pending Litigation: Richard Kirkham v. Whatcom County The second executive session item involved pending litigation in federal court: Richard Kirkham v. Whatcom County et al., filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in Tacoma under Cause No. 2:25-CV-208-DGE-DWC. This case, filed in 2025, represents a significant legal challenge that requires careful strategic planning and coordination between the county's legal team and elected officials. Federal litigation against local governments can involve a wide range of issues, from civil rights claims to constitutional challenges to county policies or actions. The case number indicates it was filed relatively recently, making it an active matter requiring ongoing legal strategy development. The presence of both Civil Deputy Prosecutors Corkern and Quinn suggests the complexity and importance of the matter. Executive sessions for litigation discussions serve a crucial function in local government, allowing officials to receive candid legal advice without compromising the county's legal position. Public discussion of litigation strategy could reveal the county's approach to opposing counsel, potentially undermining the county's ability to defend itself effectively and protect taxpayer interests. ## Extended Session and Procedural Compliance At 1:35 p.m., the originally scheduled conclusion time, Chair Galloway announced that the executive session would extend to no later than 1:50 p.m. This extension demonstrates another important aspect of executive session law: meetings cannot simply continue indefinitely in closed session. When the original time estimate proves insufficient, the chair must publicly announce any extension, maintaining transparency about the duration of closed deliberations. The 15-minute extension suggests that both agenda items required substantial discussion, possibly indicating complex legal or strategic issues requiring thorough consideration. The council's willingness to extend the session rather than rush through important legal matters reflects appropriate deliberative care in handling sensitive county business. Throughout the extended session, the council continued to receive legal counsel from both prosecutors present, ensuring that all aspects of the collective bargaining and litigation matters were thoroughly addressed. The presence of two legal advisors underscores the significance of both matters and the county's commitment to receiving comprehensive legal guidance. ## Confidentiality and Public Trust Executive sessions represent a fundamental tension in democratic governance between the principle of open government and the practical necessity of confidential deliberation on certain matters. Washington State's Open Public Meetings Act attempts to balance these competing interests by allowing closed sessions only for specifically enumerated purposes while requiring public notice and strict adherence to statutory requirements. The Whatcom County Council's careful observance of executive session procedures helps maintain public trust even when conducting confidential business. By publicly announcing the legal basis for each closed discussion, providing time estimates, and formally voting to enter executive session, the council demonstrates that these closed-door meetings follow established legal protocols rather than arbitrary decisions to exclude the public. The matters discussed—collective bargaining strategy and pending litigation—represent classic examples of situations where public discussion could harm the public interest. Open bargaining strategy discussions could weaken the county's negotiating position, potentially resulting in less favorable agreements that cost taxpayers more. Similarly, public litigation strategy sessions could compromise the county's legal defense, potentially exposing taxpayers to greater liability. ## Closing and Administrative Completion The executive session concluded precisely at 1:50 p.m., adhering to the extended timeline announced by Chair Galloway. The meeting adjourned immediately following the executive session, as no other business was scheduled for public discussion. This streamlined approach reflects the specialized nature of the meeting, which was called specifically to address these two confidential matters. The minutes, prepared by Kristi Felbinger and later approved by the County Council on July 8, 2025, document the procedural aspects of the meeting while appropriately maintaining confidentiality around the substance of executive session discussions. Council Clerk Cathy Halka's formal attestation and Chair Galloway's signature provide official documentation of the meeting's proceedings. This executive session represents routine but essential work of county government—the careful legal and strategic planning that occurs behind the scenes to protect public interests in collective bargaining and litigation. While the public cannot observe these discussions, the legal framework governing executive sessions ensures that such meetings serve legitimate governmental purposes while maintaining accountability through procedural transparency and time limitations. The meeting's efficient conduct, from the 1:06 p.m. call to order through the 1:50 p.m. adjournment, demonstrates the council's focus on addressing specific legal matters without unnecessary delay. This approach respects both the need for confidential deliberation and the principle that executive sessions should be limited to truly necessary closed-door discussions.

### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole met in executive session on Tuesday, June 24, 2025, from 1:06 p.m. to 1:50 p.m. This closed session focused on two sensitive matters: collective bargaining strategy and pending litigation against the county. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Executive Session:** A closed meeting where elected officials discuss sensitive matters like legal issues, personnel matters, or collective bargaining strategy. The public and media are excluded, but specific legal justifications under state law are required. **Collective Bargaining:** The process where government employers negotiate with employee unions over wages, benefits, working conditions, and other terms of employment. Strategy discussions are typically confidential to protect the county's negotiating position. **Civil Deputy Prosecutor:** An attorney who works for the county prosecutor's office handling civil legal matters (as opposed to criminal cases). They provide legal advice to county departments and represent the county in lawsuits. **RCW (Revised Code of Washington):** The collection of all permanent laws currently in force in Washington State. RCW 42.30 covers the Open Public Meetings Act, which requires most government meetings to be public but allows specific exceptions. **Committee of the Whole:** A meeting format where all council members participate as a committee rather than as the full council. This allows for more informal discussion while still following official meeting procedures. **Federal District Court:** The trial-level court in the federal court system. The Western District of Washington covers the western part of the state, with the Tacoma division handling cases from that region. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Kaylee Galloway | Council Chair | | Barry Buchanan | Council Member | | Tyler Byrd | Council Member | | Todd Donovan | Council Member (arrived late) | | Ben Elenbaas | Council Member | | Jon Scanlon | Council Member | | Mark Stremler | Council Member | | Jesse Corkern | Civil Deputy Prosecutor | | Christopher Quinn | Attorney | | Cathy Halka | Council Clerk | ### Background Context Executive sessions are a necessary but carefully regulated part of local government. State law requires that most government meetings be open to the public, but recognizes that some discussions—particularly those involving legal strategy, personnel matters, or collective bargaining—need confidentiality to be effective. The Open Public Meetings Act specifies exactly when and how executive sessions can be used. Collective bargaining negotiations are especially sensitive because revealing the county's strategy or bottom-line positions could weaken their negotiating stance with employee unions. Similarly, litigation strategy must remain confidential to avoid compromising the county's legal position or revealing attorney-client privileged information to opposing parties. The Richard Kirkham lawsuit represents the kind of federal civil rights litigation that counties increasingly face. Such cases often involve claims of constitutional violations by county employees or policies, and can result in significant financial settlements or judgments against the county. ### What Happened — The Short Version All seven council members gathered for a brief executive session that was scheduled to last 30 minutes but extended to 50 minutes total. Council Chair Galloway announced the legal justifications for closing the meeting, and Council Member Scanlon moved to enter executive session, which passed 6-0 with Donovan initially absent. The council discussed collective bargaining strategy with their attorneys, then reviewed the pending federal lawsuit filed by Richard Kirkham. Donovan joined the session partway through. When the initial 30-minute limit expired, Galloway announced a 15-minute extension. No votes or formal actions were taken—executive sessions are for discussion only. ### What to Watch Next • Monitor future council agendas for any action items related to collective bargaining agreements or union negotiations that may result from the strategy discussions • Track the progress of the Richard Kirkham federal lawsuit (Case No. 2:25-CV-208-DGE-DWC) through federal court records • Watch for any public settlements, motions, or trial dates in the litigation that may emerge from the legal strategy discussions ---

**Q:** What time did the executive session begin and end? **A:** The meeting was called to order at 1:06 p.m., executive session began at 1:09 p.m., and the meeting adjourned at 1:50 p.m. **Q:** How many council members were present for the vote to enter executive session? **A:** Six council members voted to enter executive session. Donovan was absent for the roll call and vote. **Q:** Who made the motion to enter executive session? **A:** Council Member Jon Scanlon made the motion, which was seconded by Barry Buchanan. **Q:** When did Todd Donovan join the executive session? **A:** According to the clerk's note, Donovan joined the executive session around 1:21 p.m. **Q:** What was the vote count to enter executive session? **A:** The motion passed 6-0, with Donovan marked as "Out of the Meeting." **Q:** How long was the session originally scheduled to last? **A:** The session was originally scheduled to conclude no later than 1:35 p.m., which would have been about 30 minutes. **Q:** Why was the executive session extended? **A:** At 1:35 p.m., Chair Galloway announced the session would extend to no later than 1:50 p.m., adding 15 minutes to complete their discussions. **Q:** What are the two legal justifications cited for this executive session? **A:** RCW 42.30.140(4)(a) for collective bargaining discussions and RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) for litigation discussions. **Q:** Who were the two attorneys present during the executive session? **A:** Jesse Corkern (Civil Deputy Prosecutor) and Christopher Quinn. **Q:** What is the full case name and number for the lawsuit discussed? **A:** Richard Kirkham v. Whatcom County et al., U.S. District Court Western District of Washington, Case No. 2:25-CV-208-DGE-DWC. **Q:** In which federal court division is the Kirkham lawsuit being heard? **A:** The case is in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Tacoma. **Q:** What is agenda bill number AB2025-436 about? **A:** It covers updates on negotiations and planning strategy discussion regarding collective bargaining. **Q:** What is agenda bill number AB2025-471 about? **A:** It covers discussion of the pending litigation involving Richard Kirkham v. Whatcom County. **Q:** Who serves as Council Chair? **A:** Kaylee Galloway serves as Council Chair. **Q:** Who serves as Clerk of the Council? **A:** Cathy Halka, AICP, CMC serves as Clerk of the Council. **Q:** Were any formal votes or actions taken during the executive session? **A:** No, both agenda items were marked as "DISCUSSED" only—no formal actions were taken. **Q:** When were the meeting minutes approved? **A:** The County Council approved these minutes on July 8, 2025. **Q:** Can the public attend executive sessions? **A:** No, executive sessions are closed to the public, which is why specific legal justifications under state law are required. ---