Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole - Executive Session

Whatcom County Council convened in executive session on February 24, 2026, to discuss four confidential matters involving collective bargaining strategy, property acquisition, and litigation issues. The closed-door meeting lasted 74 minutes, extending beyond the originally scheduled 9:50 a.m. conclusion time to 10:00 a.m. Chair Kaylee Galloway presided over the session with all seven council members present. Three county attorneys participated: Legal Counsel Kimberly Thulin, Civil Deputy Prosecutor Jesse Corkern, and Chief Civil Deputy Tom Seguine. The session addressed strategic discussions that state law permits to be conducted away from public view. The agenda included negotiations planning for collective bargaining, consultation on a potential property acquisition by Public Works, and two separate litigation matters. One litigation item involved potential future legal action, while the other concerned an active lawsuit filed by Scott W. Hansen and Diane M. Hansen against the county's Public Works Department, which names three county employees as defendants requiring potential defense and indemnification. All four agenda items were discussed, though the specific content and outcomes of these deliberations remain confidential under executive session protections. The meeting concluded with council members scheduled to immediately transition into the Finance and Administrative Services Committee meeting.

No formal votes or public actions were taken during this executive session. All four agenda items were discussed: - **AB2026-166** (Collective Bargaining Strategy) - DISCUSSED - **AB2026-153** (Property Acquisition Discussion) - DISCUSSED - **AB2026-141** (Potential Litigation Discussion) - DISCUSSED - **AB2026-157** (Hansen v. Whatcom County Litigation) - DISCUSSED The only recorded vote was Council's unanimous 7-0 decision to enter executive session, moved by Jessica Rienstra and seconded by Barry Buchanan.

Executive session proceedings are confidential, and specific quotes from the closed discussion cannot be reported. The only public statements were procedural: **Chair Kaylee Galloway, opening the session:** "We have four items for committee discussion. I'll read them all into the record now." **Chair Galloway, at 9:48 a.m.:** "The time is now 9:48. We are gonna need another 10 minutes. So we will aim to adjourn at 10 a.m." **Chair Galloway, concluding:** "The time is now 10 a.m. Our executive session has adjourned. We will start up with council's finance and administrative services committee at 10.05 a.m."

# The Closed-Door Council: Inside Whatcom County's Executive Session ## Meeting Overview On Tuesday morning, February 24, 2026, the Whatcom County Council convened in the courthouse chambers for one of government's most secretive but legally essential functions: an executive session. Chair Kaylee Galloway called the Committee of the Whole Executive Session to order at 8:46 a.m., with all seven council members present for what would become a 74-minute closed-door meeting addressing some of the county's most sensitive legal and personnel matters. Unlike regular council meetings where citizens can observe the democratic process unfold, executive sessions operate under strict legal protections that allow elected officials to discuss confidential matters away from public scrutiny. This particular session would tackle four critical issues: collective bargaining strategy, a potential property acquisition, possible litigation, and an active lawsuit involving county employees. The meeting's significance lay not in what the public could witness—which was virtually nothing—but in the weighty matters being deliberated behind closed doors, each carrying potential financial and legal implications for Whatcom County's 230,000 residents. ## The Legal Framework for Secrecy Before disappearing into executive session, Chair Galloway methodically read each agenda item into the public record, along with the specific legal authorities that justified closing the doors. This procedural step, while routine, represents one of the few transparency requirements governing executive sessions under Washington's Open Public Meetings Act. "We have four items for committee discussion. I'll read them all into the record now," Galloway announced, proceeding to detail each item with its corresponding Revised Code of Washington (RCW) citation. The legal scaffolding was precise: RCW 42.30.140(4)(a) for collective bargaining discussions, RCW 42.30.110(1)(b) for property acquisition, and RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) for litigation matters—twice over. Present to guide the council through these sensitive discussions were three attorneys: County Counsel Kimberly Thulin, Civil Deputy Prosecutor Jesse Corkern, and Chief Civil Deputy Tom Seguine. Their presence underscored the legal complexity of the matters at hand and the potential risks facing the county. Council member Jessica Rienstra moved to enter executive session "until 9:50 a.m. to discuss the items pursuant to the stated RCWs," with Barry Buchanan providing the second. The vote was unanimous—seven in favor, none opposed—and by 8:49 a.m., the doors had closed on democracy's most opaque but legally protected corner. ## ## Behind Closed Doors: The Hidden Agenda What transpired during the next hour and fourteen minutes remains largely a mystery, as is the nature of executive sessions. The public record offers only the barest skeleton of information: four items were "discussed," but no details of those discussions, no quotes from council members, no indication of decisions reached or positions taken. The first item, AB2026-166, concerned "update on negotiations and planning strategy discussion regarding collective bargaining." This likely involved ongoing or upcoming contract negotiations with county employee unions, where public discussion of negotiation strategy could undermine the county's position at the bargaining table. Such sessions are legally protected because transparency in this context could cost taxpayers money if the county's negotiating hand were revealed. The second matter, AB2026-153, involved "discussion with Public Works staff regarding a potential property acquisition." Property discussions are often conducted in executive session to prevent speculation and price manipulation in real estate markets. If the county is considering purchasing land for public purposes—perhaps for infrastructure, parks, or government facilities—premature disclosure could drive up acquisition costs significantly. ## The Shadow of Litigation The session's final two items both concerned litigation, highlighting the legal pressures facing Whatcom County. AB2026-141 addressed "discussion of potential litigation" with the county's civil prosecutors, suggesting the county may be considering filing a lawsuit or expects to be sued over some undisclosed matter. More specifically, AB2026-157 dealt with active litigation: "Scott W. Hansen and Diane M. Hansen vs. Whatcom County Public Works Department et al." This Superior Court case, numbered 26-2-00133-37, involves three current or former county employees who are named as defendants: Elizabeth Kosa (Director of Public Works), Tyler Schroeder (former Deputy Executive), and Matt Johnson (Road Crew Leader). The discussion focused on "defense and indemnification" of these employees, meaning the county was deliberating whether and how to provide legal protection and financial coverage for staff members sued in connection with their official duties. Such decisions can have significant budget implications and set important precedents for employee protection. ## The Extension: More Time Needed At 9:48 a.m., just two minutes before the originally scheduled conclusion, Chair Galloway returned to the dais with a brief public announcement: "The time is now 9:48. We are gonna need another 10 minutes. So we will aim to adjourn at 10 a.m." This extension, while procedurally minor, revealed that the discussions had proven more complex or contentious than anticipated. Executive sessions are legally required to announce extensions publicly, one of the few transparency requirements governing these closed-door meetings. The additional time suggested that at least one of the four matters required deeper deliberation—whether it was strategizing for labor negotiations, evaluating a property deal, preparing for potential litigation, or determining the county's response to the Hansen lawsuit. ## Democracy's Necessary Shadows Executive sessions represent one of democracy's inherent tensions: the need for transparent government balanced against the practical requirements of effective governance. While citizens have a fundamental right to observe their elected officials at work, certain discussions—involving personnel matters, legal strategy, property acquisitions, and collective bargaining—can only function effectively under confidentiality. The legal framework governing these sessions reflects this balance. Executive sessions must be announced publicly, with specific legal justifications provided. They cannot be used to make final decisions on most matters—those must happen in public. And they are limited to specific circumstances defined by state law. Yet the very nature of executive sessions means the public must trust that their elected officials are using this protected time responsibly, discussing only the matters legally permitted and not straying into inappropriate territory. This trust becomes particularly important when sessions involve significant county business, as this one clearly did. ## Closing & What's Ahead At exactly 10 a.m., the executive session concluded as quietly as it had begun. "The time is now 10 a.m. Our executive session has adjourned," Chair Galloway announced. "We will start up with council's finance and administrative services committee at 10.05 a.m." No announcements were made about decisions reached, positions taken, or actions planned. The public record would show only that four items were "discussed"—a bare minimum of transparency for matters that could affect county finances, employee welfare, legal strategy, and public resources. The transition back to regular committee business marked the end of this particular glimpse behind the curtain of county governance. Whatever strategies were developed, whatever legal advice was given, whatever property considerations were weighed, and whatever collective bargaining positions were discussed would remain in the shadows, known only to the seven council members and three attorneys present. For the citizens of Whatcom County, the 74-minute executive session represented both democracy's necessary accommodations to practical governance and the ongoing challenge of maintaining public trust in processes that, by legal design, cannot be fully transparent. The true test of this session's value would come not in what the public could observe, but in how well the private deliberations served the public interest in the weeks and months ahead.

## MODULE S1: STUDY GUIDE **Meeting ID:** WHA-CON-CTW-EXS-2026-02-24 A structured study guide helping readers understand the meeting's content and context. Written for a general civic audience — assume no prior knowledge of the issues. ### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole met in executive session on Tuesday, February 24th, 2026, from 8:46 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. in a hybrid format. The session was closed to the public to discuss sensitive matters including collective bargaining negotiations, property acquisition, and pending litigation involving county staff. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Executive Session:** A closed meeting authorized by state law where elected officials can discuss certain sensitive topics away from public view, such as litigation strategy, personnel matters, and real estate negotiations. **Committee of the Whole:** A format where the entire county council meets as a committee rather than in formal session, typically used for discussion and deliberation before formal votes. **RCW (Revised Code of Washington):** State statutes that govern how public meetings must be conducted, including specific circumstances when executive sessions are permitted. **Collective Bargaining:** The process of negotiating wages, benefits, and working conditions between the county government and employee unions. **Civil Deputy Prosecutor:** An attorney employed by the county who handles civil legal matters (as opposed to criminal cases), including lawsuits against the county. **Indemnification:** The county's legal obligation to defend and pay legal costs for employees who are sued for actions taken in their official capacity. **Hybrid Meeting:** A meeting format that allows participation both in-person and remotely via technology like Zoom. **Agenda Bill (AB):** The county's numbering system for agenda items, formatted as AB-YEAR-sequential number. ### 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 | | Cathy Halka | Clerk of the Council | | Kimberly Thulin | County Legal Counsel | | Jesse Corkern | Civil Deputy Prosecutor | | Tom Seguine | Chief Civil Deputy | | Elizabeth Kosa | Director, Public Works (subject of litigation) | | Tyler Schroeder | Former Deputy Executive (subject of litigation) | | Matt Johnson | Road Crew Leader (subject of litigation) | | Scott W. Hansen | Plaintiff in lawsuit against county | | Diane M. Hansen | Plaintiff in lawsuit against county | ### Background Context Executive sessions are a necessary but carefully regulated part of local government. Washington State law recognizes that certain discussions—particularly around legal strategy, personnel matters, and real estate negotiations—need to happen confidentially to protect the public interest. However, these sessions are strictly limited in scope and must be announced publicly with specific legal citations. The four topics discussed reflect common areas where counties face sensitive decisions. Collective bargaining affects county employees' compensation and working conditions, which ultimately impacts service delivery and taxpayer costs. Property acquisitions for public works projects require confidential negotiations to avoid inflating prices. Litigation discussions are particularly sensitive because public disclosure of legal strategy could harm the county's position in court and potentially cost taxpayers more in settlements or judgments. The fact that county staff are named as defendants in the Hansen lawsuit highlights how public employees can face personal legal exposure for decisions made in their official capacity, making the county's indemnification policies crucial for both employee protection and recruitment. ### What Happened — The Short Version The meeting began at 8:46 a.m. with all seven council members present. Chair Galloway read four agenda items into the record, each involving topics that require confidential discussion under state law. The council voted unanimously (7-0) to enter executive session, initially planned to end at 9:50 a.m. During the closed session, the council discussed collective bargaining strategy with union negotiations, a potential property acquisition involving Public Works, and two separate litigation matters with the county's civil prosecutors. One case involves "potential litigation" while the other is an active lawsuit (Hansen v. Whatcom County) where three county employees are named as defendants. The executive session ran longer than expected. At 9:48 a.m., Chair Galloway announced a 10-minute extension. The session finally concluded at 10:00 a.m., having lasted about 1 hour and 11 minutes total. No public actions were taken—executive sessions are for discussion only, with any formal decisions requiring a return to public session. ### What to Watch Next • Monitor future council agendas for public votes on any decisions emerging from these executive session discussions • Watch for updates on the Hansen v. Whatcom County lawsuit progress and any indemnification decisions • Look for public announcements about collective bargaining agreement outcomes with county employee unions ---

## MODULE S2: FLASH CARDS **Meeting ID:** WHA-CON-CTW-EXS-2026-02-24 **Q:** What time did the Whatcom County Council executive session begin and end? **A:** The session began at 8:46 a.m. and ended at 10:00 a.m., running longer than the originally planned 9:50 a.m. conclusion time. **Q:** How many council members were present and what was the vote to enter executive session? **A:** All seven council members were present. The vote to enter executive session was unanimous 7-0. **Q:** Who made the motion and second to enter executive session? **A:** Council member Jessica Rienstra made the motion and Council member Barry Buchanan provided the second. **Q:** What are the four main topics discussed in this executive session? **A:** Collective bargaining negotiations, a potential Public Works property acquisition, potential litigation discussion, and pending litigation in the Hansen v. Whatcom County case. **Q:** Which RCW statute allows executive sessions for collective bargaining discussions? **A:** RCW 42.30.140(4)(a) allows executive sessions for collective bargaining strategy discussions. **Q:** Which RCW statute allows executive sessions for property acquisition discussions? **A:** RCW 42.30.110(1)(b) allows executive sessions for real estate acquisition discussions. **Q:** Which RCW statute allows executive sessions for litigation discussions? **A:** RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) allows executive sessions for potential and pending litigation discussions. **Q:** What is the case number for the Hansen v. Whatcom County lawsuit? **A:** The case number is 26-2-00133-37 in Whatcom County Superior Court. **Q:** Which three county employees are named as defendants in the Hansen lawsuit? **A:** Elizabeth Kosa (Public Works Director), Tyler Schroeder (Former Deputy Executive), and Matt Johnson (Road Crew Leader). **Q:** Who are the attorneys present at this executive session? **A:** Kimberly Thulin (County Legal Counsel), Jesse Corkern (Civil Deputy Prosecutor), and Tom Seguine (Chief Civil Deputy). **Q:** What does "indemnification" mean in the context of the Hansen lawsuit? **A:** The county's legal obligation to defend and pay legal costs for employees who are sued for actions taken in their official capacity. **Q:** What is a Committee of the Whole meeting format? **A:** A format where the entire county council meets as a committee for discussion and deliberation, typically before formal votes in regular session. **Q:** Why was this meeting conducted in "hybrid" format? **A:** To allow participation both in-person in Council Chambers and remotely via Zoom or phone. **Q:** What happened when the executive session needed more time? **A:** At 9:48 a.m., Chair Galloway announced a 10-minute extension, moving the end time from 9:50 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. **Q:** What agenda bill numbers correspond to the four discussion topics? **A:** AB2026-166 (collective bargaining), AB2026-153 (property acquisition), AB2026-141 (potential litigation), and AB2026-157 (Hansen lawsuit). **Q:** Can the public participate in or observe executive sessions? **A:** No, executive sessions are closed to the public by law, though the topics and legal authority must be announced publicly beforehand. **Q:** What meeting format follows this executive session? **A:** The Council's Finance and Administrative Services Committee meeting was scheduled to start at 10:05 a.m. **Q:** Who serves as the Clerk of the Council? **A:** Cathy Halka, AICP, CMC serves as the Clerk of the Council. ---