Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole-Executive Session

Whatcom County Council met in executive session Tuesday morning to discuss legal strategy for defending three Sheriff's Office personnel named in a civil lawsuit. The 34-minute closed-door meeting resulted in unanimous approval to provide legal defense and indemnification for Sheriff Donnell Tanksley, Lieutenant Keith Linderman, and Detective Derek Jones in the case Samantha L. Robinson v. Whatcom County et al. The executive session, held pursuant to state law allowing confidential discussion of pending litigation, was brief but required one five-minute extension beyond the originally scheduled 9:10 AM conclusion. All seven council members attended and unanimously voted 7-0 to authorize the county's legal defense of the three defendants. The lawsuit, filed in Skagit County Superior Court under cause number 26-2-00233-29, involves allegations against the Sheriff's Office personnel, though the specific nature of the claims was not discussed in public session. The council's decision was based on three legal findings: that the defendants were acting in a matter where the county had an interest, were discharging duties imposed or authorized by law, and acted in good faith. This type of indemnification decision is routine for local governments when employees face litigation related to their official duties. The unanimous vote indicates council consensus that the defendants' actions fell within the scope of their employment and met legal standards for county protection.

**AB2026-189 - Defense and Indemnification Authorization** - Vote count: 7-0 (unanimous approval) - Motion by: Council Member Jon Scanlon - Second by: Council Member Elizabeth Boyle - Action: Approved defense and indemnification of Sheriff Donnell Tanksley, Lieutenant Keith Linderman, and Detective Derek Jones in Robinson v. Whatcom County et al., Skagit County Superior Court Cause No. 26-2-00233-29 - Legal basis: Three findings established that defendants were acting in county interest, discharging lawful duties, and acted in good faith - Practical impact: County will provide legal representation and cover defense costs for the three Sheriff's Office personnel

Due to the executive session format, no substantive quotes were captured beyond procedural statements: **Chair Kaylee Galloway, opening the meeting:** "We have one item for committee discussion that is AB 2026-189. It's a discussion of pending litigation with Civil Deputy Prosecutor Jesse Corkin regarding Samantha L. Robinson via Whatcom County et al." **Council Member Jon Scanlon, making the motion:** "I hereby move to approve defense and indemnification of Don L. Tanksley, Whatcom County Sheriff, Lieutenant Keith Linderman, Whatcom County Sheriff's Office, and Detective Derek Jones, Whatcom County Sheriff's Office." **Chair Galloway, on executive session authority:** "Discussion of this item may take place in executive session close to the public pursuant to RCW 42.30.110, subsection one, subsection little I."

# Whatcom County Council Executive Session: Defense Authorization in Law Enforcement Lawsuit ## Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council convened in executive session on Tuesday morning, March 17th, 2026, to discuss a single but significant matter: whether to provide legal defense and financial protection to three sheriff's office personnel facing a federal civil rights lawsuit. Chair Kaylee Galloway called the Committee of the Whole Executive Session to order at 8:47 a.m. in the county courthouse council chambers, with all seven council members present both in-person and via hybrid connection. This was a focused, business-like session with one agenda item: determining whether the county would defend Sheriff Donnell Tanksley, Lieutenant Keith Linderman, and Detective Derek Jones in a lawsuit filed by Samantha L. Robinson. The case, filed in Skagit County Superior Court, raised questions about actions taken by these law enforcement officers and whether those actions fell within the scope of their official duties — a determination that would dictate whether taxpayers would fund their legal defense. The meeting's brevity — just 34 minutes including a 28-minute closed executive session — belied the significance of the decision. County legal staff, including Civil Deputy Prosecutor Jesse Corkern and attorney Kimberly Thulin, were present to advise the council during the confidential deliberations allowed under Washington state law for litigation matters. ## Executive Session on Robinson v. Whatcom County Chair Galloway opened the substantive portion of the meeting by reading the full case details into the public record: "AB 2026-189. It's a discussion of pending litigation with Civil Deputy Prosecutor Jesse Corkin regarding Samantha L. Robinson via Whatcom County et al. Skagit County Superior Court cause number 26-2-00233-29. Defense and indemnification of Danelle Tanksley, Whatcom County Sheriff, Lieutenant Keith Linderman, Whatcom County Sheriff's Office, and Detective Derek Jones, Whatcom County Sheriff's Office, named as defendants." The chair explained that the discussion would take place in executive session — closed to the public — under RCW 42.30.110(1)(i), the state law provision that allows government bodies to discuss pending litigation in private to protect legal strategy and attorney-client privilege. She announced the session would conclude by 9:10 a.m., with public announcement required if it ran longer. The motion to enter executive session came swiftly. "So moved," said Councilmember Barry Buchanan immediately after Galloway's explanation. "Second," responded Councilmember Jessica Rienstra. The roll call vote was unanimous — all seven council members voting yes to close the meeting to public scrutiny while they discussed the lawsuit's details and the county's potential liability. At 8:49 a.m., the council entered executive session, leaving the public record silent for the next 28 minutes as attorneys briefed council members on the case specifics, the legal standards for indemnification, and the county's exposure if it declined to defend the officers. The session ran longer than initially planned. At 9:12 a.m., Galloway briefly returned to public session to announce an extension: "We're going to need another five or so minutes, so we'll come back at 9:17." This extension suggested the legal consultation required more thorough discussion than initially anticipated, possibly involving complex questions about the scope of the officers' authority or the nature of their alleged actions. ## The Decision: Full Defense Authorization When the council reconvened in public session at 9:18 a.m., the outcome was clear and decisive. Councilmember John Scanlon took the lead, presenting a carefully worded motion that demonstrated the council had thoroughly analyzed the legal requirements for providing defense and indemnification. "So after deliberations, Council, I've got a motion here on this matter," Scanlon began, then read the formal motion: "I hereby move to approve defense and indemnification of Don L. Tanksley, Whatcom County Sheriff, Lieutenant Keith Linderman, Whatcom County Sheriff's Office, and Detective Derek Jones, Whatcom County Sheriff's Office named as defendants in Samantha L. Robinson v. Whatcom County et al., Skagit County Superior Court, cause number 26-2-00233-29." But Scanlon's motion went beyond just approval — it included the legal findings that justified the county's decision to stand behind its law enforcement officers. The motion was "based on the following findings," he continued, reading three critical determinations that the council had reached during its private deliberations: "A, Donnell Tanksley, Keith Linderman, and Derek Jones were acting in a manner in which the county had an interest. B, Donnell Tanksley, Keith Linderman, and Derek Jones for acting in the discharge of a duty imposed or authorized by law. See Donnell Tanksley, Keith Linderman and Derek Jones acted in good faith." These findings represent the legal test under Washington state law for when a public entity must provide defense and indemnification to its employees. The council determined that all three officers were acting within their official capacity, performing duties required by their positions, and doing so in good faith — meaning without malicious intent or knowledge that their actions were unlawful. Councilmember Elizabeth Boyle immediately seconded the motion, and Chair Galloway called for further discussion. The silence that followed — "Okay. Seeing none, can we do a roll call vote?" — suggested the council had reached consensus during the executive session and saw no need for public debate on their decision. ## Unanimous Support for Law Enforcement The final roll call vote was as decisive as the motion to enter executive session had been. Every council member — Boyle, Buchanan, Ben Elenbaas, Galloway, Rienstra, Scanlon, and Mark Stremler — voted yes. The 7-0 vote meant the county would provide full legal defense for Sheriff Tanksley, Lieutenant Linderman, and Detective Jones, and would pay any damages if they were found liable in the Robinson lawsuit. This unanimous support suggests either that the case against the officers appeared weak based on the legal briefing, or that the council viewed their actions as clearly falling within acceptable law enforcement practices, or both. The lack of dissent also indicates no council member felt the officers had acted outside the scope of their authority or in bad faith. ## Closing & What's Ahead Chair Galloway adjourned the executive session at 9:21 a.m., noting that the council would reconvene for a special meeting just five minutes later at 9:26 a.m. — suggesting a busy morning of county business beyond the litigation matter. The decision to defend the three law enforcement officers means Whatcom County taxpayers will now fund their legal defense in what appears to be a significant civil rights lawsuit. While the specific allegations in Samantha L. Robinson's lawsuit remain sealed from public discussion due to the executive session format, the county's willingness to provide full defense and indemnification suggests officials believe the officers acted appropriately within their law enforcement duties. The case will now proceed through Skagit County Superior Court with county attorneys representing Sheriff Tanksley, Lieutenant Linderman, and Detective Jones alongside whatever representation the county itself requires. The Robinson lawsuit joins the ongoing legal challenges facing law enforcement agencies across Washington state, as courts and communities continue to examine the boundaries of police authority and accountability. For the three officers involved, the council's unanimous decision provides crucial financial protection and institutional support as they face what could be costly and career-affecting litigation. For county residents, it represents a commitment of public resources to defend law enforcement actions that county leadership has determined were lawful and appropriate exercises of police power.

## MODULE S1: STUDY GUIDE **Meeting ID:** WHA-CON-CTW-EXS-2026-03-17 ### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole met in executive session on Tuesday, March 17, 2026, to discuss pending litigation and ultimately approved defense and indemnification for three Sheriff's Office employees named as defendants in a lawsuit. The meeting was closed to the public under state law provisions for discussing legal matters. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Executive Session:** A closed meeting where elected officials can discuss specific sensitive topics away from public view. State law (RCW 42.30.110) allows executive sessions for limited purposes including pending litigation, personnel matters, and real estate transactions. **Defense and Indemnification:** A legal protection where the county agrees to pay for legal defense costs and any damages if employees are sued for actions taken within their official duties. This protects employees from personal financial liability when acting on behalf of the government. **RCW 42.30.110(1)(i):** The specific state law that allows government bodies to meet in executive session to discuss pending litigation where discussion in public would be likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency. **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 and procedural flexibility while still requiring public notice and following open meeting laws. **Civil Deputy Prosecutor:** An attorney employed by the county to handle civil legal matters, as opposed to criminal cases. In this context, Jesse Corkern was advising the council on the litigation matter. **Good Faith Standard:** A legal principle requiring that public employees acted with honest intention and without malice when performing their duties. This is one of the criteria for determining whether the county should provide legal protection. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Kaylee Galloway | Council Chair, presiding over the meeting | | 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 | | Kimberly Thulin | Attorney | | Donnell Tanksley | Whatcom County Sheriff (defendant in lawsuit) | | Keith Linderman | Lieutenant, Sheriff's Office (defendant in lawsuit) | | Derek Jones | Detective, Sheriff's Office (defendant in lawsuit) | | Samantha L. Robinson | Plaintiff in the lawsuit | ### Background Context When government employees are sued in their official capacity, the question arises whether the government entity should provide legal defense and cover potential damages. This decision involves weighing whether the employees were acting within their authority, following established procedures, and operating in good faith. Counties face these indemnification decisions regularly, particularly involving law enforcement personnel who may be sued over arrests, investigations, or other enforcement actions. The lawsuit involves Samantha L. Robinson suing Whatcom County and the three Sheriff's Office employees in Skagit County Superior Court. While the specific details of the case were discussed in executive session and are not public, the council's decision to provide defense and indemnification suggests they determined the employees were acting within their official duties. This type of legal protection is important for ensuring that public employees can perform their duties without fear of personal financial ruin if their actions are later challenged in court. ### What Happened — The Short Version The council met at 8:47 AM and immediately voted 7-0 to enter executive session to discuss the lawsuit. All seven council members participated in the closed session with two attorneys present to provide legal advice. The executive session was originally scheduled to end at 9:10 AM but was extended until 9:17 AM to complete discussions. When they returned to public session at 9:18 AM, Council Member Jon Scanlon made a motion to approve defense and indemnification for the three Sheriff's Office employees. The motion included three specific legal findings: that the employees were acting in a matter where the county had an interest, that they were performing duties authorized by law, and that they acted in good faith. Council Member Elizabeth Boyle seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:21 AM. ### What to Watch Next • The Robinson v. Whatcom County lawsuit will continue in Skagit County Superior Court with the county now providing legal representation for the Sheriff's Office employees. • Future council meetings may include updates on litigation costs or settlement discussions, though many details will likely remain confidential until the case is resolved. ---

## MODULE S2: FLASH CARDS **Meeting ID:** WHA-CON-CTW-EXS-2026-03-17 **Q:** What date did the Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole executive session take place? **A:** Tuesday, March 17, 2026, starting at 8:47 AM. **Q:** Who is the plaintiff in the lawsuit discussed during this executive session? **A:** Samantha L. Robinson. **Q:** What are the three Sheriff's Office employees being defended by the county? **A:** Sheriff Donnell Tanksley, Lieutenant Keith Linderman, and Detective Derek Jones. **Q:** What was the vote count on entering executive session? **A:** 7-0 unanimous approval to enter executive session. **Q:** Which state law allows the council to discuss pending litigation in executive session? **A:** RCW 42.30.110(1)(i), which permits closed sessions for discussing pending litigation. **Q:** Who made the motion to approve defense and indemnification? **A:** Council Member Jon Scanlon made the motion. **Q:** Who seconded the motion for defense and indemnification? **A:** Council Member Elizabeth Boyle seconded the motion. **Q:** What was the final vote on approving defense and indemnification? **A:** 7-0 unanimous approval. **Q:** What court is handling the Robinson lawsuit? **A:** Skagit County Superior Court. **Q:** What is the case number for Robinson v. Whatcom County? **A:** 26-2-00233-29. **Q:** How long was the executive session originally scheduled to last? **A:** Until 9:10 AM, but it was extended to 9:17 AM. **Q:** What does "defense and indemnification" mean for county employees? **A:** The county will provide legal representation and pay for defense costs and any potential damages. **Q:** What are the three legal findings required for approving indemnification? **A:** The employees were acting in the county's interest, performing authorized duties, and acting in good faith. **Q:** Who were the attorneys present during the executive session? **A:** Civil Deputy Prosecutor Jesse Corkern and Kimberly Thulin. **Q:** What time did the meeting adjourn? **A:** 9:21 AM. **Q:** What is a Committee of the Whole meeting? **A:** A meeting format where all council members participate as a committee for more informal discussion while still following open meeting laws. **Q:** Why was the executive session extended beyond the original time? **A:** The council needed additional time to complete their deliberations on the litigation matter. **Q:** Who presided over the meeting? **A:** Council Chair Kaylee Galloway. **Q:** What happens next with the lawsuit after the council's decision? **A:** The county will provide legal defense for the three Sheriff's Office employees as the case proceeds in court. ---