Wash. Rev. Code » Title 42 · Chapter 42.30
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.30.010 (2026)

Legislative declaration

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed and informing the people's public servants of their views so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. For these reasons, even when not required by law, public agencies are encouraged to incorporate and accept public comment during their decision-making process.
[ 2022 c 115 s 2; 1971 ex.s. c 250 s 1.]

Notes:

Reviser's note: Throughout this chapter, the phrases "this act" and "this 1971 amendatory act" have been changed to "this chapter." "This act" [1971 ex.s. c 250] consists of this chapter, the amendment to RCW 34.04.025, and the repeal of RCW 42.32.010 and 42.32.020.
Findings—Intent—2022 c 115: See note following RCW 42.30.230.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: West v. Washington Ass'n of Cnty. Officials, 162 Wash. App. 120 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
West v. Washington Ass'n of Cnty. Officials, 162 Wash. App. 120 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “at 159-60 ; see also RCW 42.30.010 (“The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
Citizens All. for Prop. Rights Legal Fund v. San Juan Cnty., 359 P.3d 753 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 2× “RCW 42.30.010. ¶65 The attorney general’s full definition captures the appropriate middle ground on which we should analyze whether and when the CAO Team acted on behalf of the Council—whenever it “exert[ed] power or influence or produce [d] an effect as the representative of…”
Refai v. Cent. Washington Univ., 742 P.2d 137 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 6× “" [4] We are aware of the legislative declaration as to the need for open meetings, RCW 42.30.010, and that the act is remedial and should be liberally construed, RCW 42.”
Cole v. Webster, 692 P.2d 799 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 2× “30) upon two occasions appears to fall directly within the category of an act of malfeasance since such conduct is alleged to have been "unlawful" and in violation of one of the laws of this state. Additionally, pursuant to the legislative intent behind RCW 42.”
Miller v. City of Tacoma, 979 P.2d 429 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 2× “The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.”
Miller v. City of Tacoma, 138 Wash. 2d 318 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 2× “The people, in delegating authority, do not give their pubbc servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.”
Wood v. Battle Ground Sch. Dist., 27 P.3d 1208 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for *1215 them to know.”
Wood v. Battle Ground Sch. Dist., 107 Wash. App. 550 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.”
Arthur West v. Seattle Port Comm'n, 380 P.3d 82 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “A permissive standing requirement is in line with the legislature’s declaration that “[t]he people .”
In re the Recall of East, 144 Wash. 2d 807 (Wash. 2001). “RCW 42.30.010. For all these reasons, we conclude that Commissioners Kast and VanSteertegem acted in a reasonable manner when they ordered the expulsion of Osterhouse.”
Tuscola Wind III, LLC v. Almer Charter Twp., 327 F. Supp. 3d 1028 (E.D. Mich. 2018). · cites it 2× “910, which directs that the open meetings act should be construed liberally, and the Legislature's forceful declaration of legislative purpose in RCW 42.30.010. Wood , 27 P.3d at 1214-1215 ; RCW 42.”
In Re Recall of Kast, 31 P.3d 677 (Wash. 2001). “RCW 42.30.010. For all these reasons, we conclude that Commissioners Kast and Steertegem acted in a reasonable manner when they ordered the expulsion of Osterhouse.”
Show all 53 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.