Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole-Executive Session

The Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole convened a one-hour executive session on February 10, 2026, to discuss pending and potential litigation matters with county attorneys. The closed-door meeting addressed two distinct legal issues involving the county's Planning and Development Services department and comprehensive planning processes. Council Chair Kaylee Galloway called the hybrid meeting to order at 8:45 AM with all seven council members present. The session was authorized under RCW 42.30.110(1)(i), which permits closed executive sessions for discussions of pending or potential litigation with legal counsel. Three deputy prosecutors participated: Jesse Corkern and Greg Greenan from Planning and Development Services, and Kimberly Thulin as council's attorney. The executive session was initially scheduled to conclude by 9:30 AM but required an extension to 9:45 AM, ultimately adjourning at 9:46 AM. The meeting involved discussion of two agenda bills but resulted in no formal votes or public actions. Both items were marked as "DISCUSSED" in the official record. The timing and subject matter suggest the county is navigating complex legal challenges related to its planning and development functions, requiring confidential attorney-client consultations before potential public deliberation on these matters.

**Motion to Enter Executive Session:** - Vote: 7-0 (Unanimous) - Moved by Jessica Rienstra, seconded by Jon Scanlon - Motion: To enter executive session until 9:30 AM (later extended to 9:45 AM) - Purpose: Discuss litigation matters pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) **Agenda Items Discussed (No Votes Taken):** - AB2026-120: Discussion of pending and potential litigation regarding Planning & Development Services with Civil Deputy Prosecutor Jesse Corkern - DISCUSSED - AB2026-155: Discussion with Planning and Development Services attorney Greg Greenan regarding potential litigation related to the comprehensive plan - DISCUSSED **Session Extension:** - At 9:28 AM, Chair Galloway announced extension from 9:30 AM to 9:45 AM - Final adjournment: 9:46 AM

**Chair Kaylee Galloway, opening the meeting:** "I'd like to call to order today's Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole Executive Session." **Chair Galloway, explaining the legal basis:** "Discussion of this item may take place in executive session close to the public pursuant to RCW 42.30.110, subsection 1, subsection little i." **Chair Galloway, on the scheduled duration:** "The council will meet in executive session until 9.30 a.m. If the meeting extends beyond that stated conclusion time, I will go ahead and come back to the dais and make a public announcement." **Jessica Rienstra, making the motion:** "So moved." **Chair Galloway, during mid-session extension:** "The time is now 9.28. We are going to need a little bit more time. So we will extend the executive session to 9.45 a.m." **Chair Galloway, concluding the session:** "The time is now 9.46 and our executive session is adjourned. We will reconvene as Council's Finance and Administrative Services Committee in five minutes."

## Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole convened in executive session on Tuesday, February 10, 2026, at 8:46 a.m. in a hybrid format at the County Courthouse. Council Chair Kaylee Galloway called the meeting to order with all seven council members present: Elizabeth Boyle, Barry Buchanan, Ben Elenbaas, Kaylee Galloway, Jessica Rienstra, Jon Scanlon, and Mark Stremler. The session was convened specifically to discuss two sensitive legal matters requiring confidential attorney-client consultation under Washington State's Open Public Meetings Act. Three deputy prosecutors were present to provide legal counsel: Jesse Corkern, Greg Greenan, and the council's own attorney, Kimberly Tolleen. What was initially scheduled as a 45-minute closed session ultimately extended to just over an hour, suggesting the complexity and significance of the legal issues under discussion. ## The Executive Session Structure Chair Galloway opened the public portion by carefully outlining the legal framework for the closed session. She read the two agenda items that would be discussed behind closed doors, both involving potential litigation related to the county's planning and development functions. The first item, AB 2026-120, concerned "discussion of pending and potential litigation with Civil Deputy Prosecutor Jesse Corkin regarding planning and development services." The second, added by revision just the day before, was AB 2026-155, involving "discussion with Planning and Development Services Attorney Civil Deputy Prosecutor Greg Greenan regarding potential litigation related to the comprehensive plan." Both discussions were authorized under RCW 42.30.110, subsection 1, subsection i — the statute that allows public bodies to meet in executive session to discuss pending or potential litigation with legal counsel. Galloway announced that the session would run until 9:30 a.m., with a commitment to return to public session to announce any extensions. The procedural formality reflected the serious legal exposure the county appeared to be navigating. Council Member Rienstra moved to enter executive session, with Council Member Scanlon providing the second. The vote was unanimous — seven to zero — with no discussion on the motion itself. ## Behind Closed Doors: Legal Strategy and Risk Assessment At 8:48 a.m., the council disappeared behind closed doors with their legal team for what would become an extended consultation on two distinct but potentially related legal vulnerabilities. While the specific content of executive session discussions cannot be disclosed, the agenda items and timing provide important context about the challenges facing Whatcom County's planning and development operations. The involvement of multiple deputy prosecutors suggests the county was grappling with complex legal exposure spanning different aspects of its land use authority. Jesse Corkern's role in discussing "pending and potential litigation" regarding planning and development services indicates the county may be facing or anticipating legal challenges to specific development decisions, permit processes, or regulatory actions. The second discussion with Greg Greenan about "potential litigation related to the comprehensive plan" points to broader legal risks around the county's long-range planning framework. Comprehensive plans are foundational documents that guide all local land use decisions, and litigation in this area often involves challenges to environmental review, growth management compliance, or consistency with state planning requirements. ## Extended Deliberations The complexity of the legal issues became apparent when Chair Galloway emerged at 9:28 a.m. — just two minutes before the scheduled conclusion — to announce an extension. "The time is now 9.28. We are going to need a little bit more time," she stated. "So we will extend the executive session to 9.45 a.m." This 15-minute extension suggested the council and their attorneys were working through detailed legal strategies, risk assessments, or settlement considerations that couldn't be rushed. The fact that even the extended timeline proved insufficient — the session actually concluded at 9:46 a.m. — indicates the gravity and complexity of the legal challenges under discussion. ## Return to Public Business When Chair Galloway finally emerged to close the executive session at 9:46 a.m., she provided no summary or indication of the discussions that had taken place — as required by law for executive sessions. The transition was purely procedural: "The time is now 9.46 and our executive session is adjourned. We will reconvene as Council's Finance and Administrative Services Committee in five minutes. So that would be 9.51." This seamless transition to other county business reflected the compartmentalized nature of executive session work. Whatever legal strategies were discussed or decisions made would remain confidential unless and until they resulted in public actions by the council. ## The Broader Context of Planning-Related Litigation While the specific content of the discussions remains protected by attorney-client privilege, the focus on planning and development services litigation reflects broader trends in local government legal challenges. Counties across Washington State face increasing litigation around land use decisions, environmental compliance, and growth management requirements. The timing of this session — early in 2026 — may be significant, as it coincides with ongoing comprehensive plan updates required under the state's Growth Management Act. These periodic updates often trigger legal challenges from development interests, environmental groups, or neighboring jurisdictions concerned about regional impacts. The involvement of both planning-specific attorneys and general civil prosecutors suggests the county may be dealing with multi-faceted legal exposure that cuts across different areas of municipal law. This could include everything from permit appeals and environmental review challenges to constitutional claims about property rights or due process. ## Implications for County Operations The hour-long executive session dedicated to planning-related litigation suggests these legal challenges may have significant implications for the county's operations and budget. Extended attorney consultations of this nature typically involve either high-stakes pending litigation or complex legal strategies that could influence major policy decisions. For residents and stakeholders interested in the county's planning processes, this executive session signals that legal considerations are playing an important role in shaping how the county approaches development decisions and long-range planning. While the specific details remain confidential, the public investment of time and legal resources indicates these are not routine legal matters. ## Closing and What's Ahead The meeting concluded on a deliberately unremarkable note, with Chair Galloway's straightforward announcement that the executive session had ended and the transition to other committee business. This procedural approach reflects both legal requirements and the sensitive nature of the discussions that had just concluded. The brief five-minute break before reconvening as the Finance and Administrative Services Committee provided a buffer between the confidential legal discussions and the return to public business. Whatever was discussed in those 61 minutes of closed-door consultation will likely influence future public decisions by the council, but the immediate aftermath was carefully managed to maintain appropriate separation between privileged legal advice and public deliberation. The meeting serves as a reminder of the complex legal environment in which local governments operate, particularly around land use and development issues. While transparency advocates may question the need for extended closed sessions, the statutory framework recognizes that effective legal representation sometimes requires confidential consultation — even as it demands public accountability for the ultimate decisions that result from such advice.

## MODULE S1: STUDY GUIDE **Meeting ID:** WHA-CON-CTW-EXS-2026-02-10 ### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole held an executive session on February 10, 2026, to discuss two sensitive legal matters with county attorneys. The closed-door session focused on potential litigation related to Planning & Development Services and the comprehensive plan. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Executive Session:** A closed meeting where elected officials can discuss certain confidential matters away from public view, specifically authorized by state law for topics like legal strategy, personnel issues, and real estate negotiations. **RCW 42.30.110:** The section of Washington state law that allows local governments to hold executive sessions for specific purposes, including discussing potential litigation with legal counsel. **Civil Deputy Prosecutor:** An attorney who works for the county prosecutor's office and provides legal counsel to county departments and the council on civil (non-criminal) matters. **Planning & Development Services:** The county department responsible for land use planning, building permits, code enforcement, and implementing zoning regulations and the comprehensive plan. **Comprehensive Plan:** A long-term planning document required by state law that guides land use, development, and growth management policies for the county over a 20-year period. **Committee of the Whole:** A format where all council members meet together as a committee, allowing for more informal discussion before formal council meetings. **AB (Agenda Bill):** The numbering system used by Whatcom County to track agenda items, with the format AB-YYYY-### indicating the year and sequential number. **Hybrid Meeting:** A meeting format that allows participants to attend either in-person or remotely via video conference. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Kaylee Galloway | Council Chair | | Elizabeth Boyle | Council Member | | Barry Buchanan | Council Member | | Ben Elenbaas | Council Member | | Jessica Rienstra | Council Member | | Jon Scanlon | Council Member | | Mark Stremler | Council Member | | Jesse Corkern | Civil Deputy Prosecutor | | Greg Greenan | Civil Deputy Prosecutor | | Kimberly Thulin | Council Attorney | | Cathy Halka | Council Clerk | ### Background Context Executive sessions are a critical but largely invisible part of local government operations. While Washington's Open Public Meetings Act generally requires government business to be conducted in public, the law recognizes that certain sensitive matters—particularly those involving legal strategy and potential litigation—require confidential discussion to protect the public's interests. This particular executive session dealt with two separate legal concerns involving the county's planning and development functions. Planning and development issues are frequently sources of litigation in local government, as they involve property rights, regulatory authority, and significant financial interests. The comprehensive plan, in particular, is a foundational document that shapes development patterns and can affect property values across the county. The fact that two separate deputy prosecutors were involved suggests these are distinct legal matters requiring specialized expertise. Executive sessions on litigation typically focus on assessing legal risks, discussing settlement possibilities, or developing litigation strategy—all discussions that could harm the county's position if conducted in public. ### What Happened — The Short Version The meeting began at 8:45 a.m. with all seven council members present. Chair Kaylee Galloway explained they would discuss two legal matters in executive session, as allowed by state law for potential litigation discussions. The first item involved Deputy Prosecutor Jesse Corkern discussing pending and potential litigation related to Planning & Development Services. The second item, added to the agenda by revision, involved Deputy Prosecutor Greg Greenan discussing potential litigation related to the comprehensive plan. Council Member Rienstra moved to enter executive session until 9:30 a.m., seconded by Council Member Scanlon. All seven council members voted yes to enter the closed session. The executive session ran longer than expected. At 9:28 a.m., Chair Galloway came back on the record to announce they needed more time and extended the session to 9:45 a.m. The session actually concluded at 9:46 a.m. No public votes or decisions were made during the executive session—such sessions are only for discussion and strategy development. The council then prepared to reconvene as the Finance and Administrative Services Committee at 9:51 a.m. ### What to Watch Next - Monitor future council agendas for any public action items related to these litigation matters - Watch for any formal legal proceedings filed against or by Whatcom County involving planning and development issues - Pay attention to upcoming comprehensive plan updates or amendments that might be affected by these legal discussions ---

## MODULE S2: FLASH CARDS **Meeting ID:** WHA-CON-CTW-EXS-2026-02-10 **Q:** What type of meeting did Whatcom County Council hold on February 10, 2026? **A:** An executive session of the Committee of the Whole to discuss potential litigation with county attorneys. **Q:** How many council members were present at this meeting? **A:** All seven council members were present: Boyle, Buchanan, Elenbaas, Galloway, Rienstra, Scanlon, and Stremler. **Q:** What legal authority allows the council to meet in executive session? **A:** RCW 42.30.110 (1) (i), which permits closed sessions to discuss potential litigation with legal counsel. **Q:** Who chaired this executive session meeting? **A:** Council Chair Kaylee Galloway. **Q:** What were the two main topics discussed in executive session? **A:** Pending/potential litigation regarding Planning & Development Services, and potential litigation related to the comprehensive plan. **Q:** Which county attorneys participated in the executive session? **A:** Civil Deputy Prosecutors Jesse Corkern and Greg Greenan, plus council attorney Kimberly Thulin. **Q:** What time was the meeting originally scheduled to end? **A:** 9:30 a.m., but it was extended to 9:45 a.m. and actually concluded at 9:46 a.m. **Q:** What agenda bill numbers were assigned to the two discussion items? **A:** AB 2026-120 (Planning & Development Services litigation) and AB 2026-155 (comprehensive plan litigation). **Q:** Who made the motion to enter executive session? **A:** Council Member Jessica Rienstra, seconded by Council Member Jon Scanlon. **Q:** What was the vote to enter executive session? **A:** Unanimous 7-0, with all council members voting yes. **Q:** When was the second agenda item added to the meeting? **A:** It was added by revision on February 9, 2026, one day before the meeting. **Q:** What department's legal issues were the focus of the first discussion item? **A:** Planning & Development Services department. **Q:** What meeting format was used for this session? **A:** Hybrid format, allowing both in-person and remote participation. **Q:** What committee was scheduled to meet after the executive session? **A:** The Council's Finance and Administrative Services Committee at 9:51 a.m. **Q:** Can the public attend executive sessions? **A:** No, executive sessions are closed to the public by law for specific confidential matters like litigation strategy. **Q:** What is the role of a Civil Deputy Prosecutor? **A:** To provide legal counsel to county departments and the council on civil (non-criminal) legal matters. **Q:** Why might the council need to extend an executive session? **A:** Complex legal matters may require more time for thorough discussion and attorney consultation than originally anticipated. **Q:** What happens to agenda items that are "discussed" in executive session? **A:** They are marked as "DISCUSSED" but no public votes or formal decisions are made during the closed session. ---