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

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.30.040 (2026)

Conditions to attendance not to be required

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A member of the public shall not be required, as a condition to attendance at a meeting of a governing body, to register his or her name and other information, to complete a questionnaire, or otherwise to fulfill any condition precedent to his or her attendance. This section does not prohibit any generally applicable conditions determined by the governing body to be reasonably necessary to protect the public health or safety, or to protect against interruption of the meeting, including a meeting at which the physical attendance by some or all members of the public is limited due to a declared emergency.
[ 2022 c 115 s 6; 2012 c 117 s 124; 1971 ex.s. c 250 s 4.]

Notes:

Effective date—2022 c 115 ss 5-11: See note following RCW 42.30.230.
Findings—Intent—2022 c 115: See note following RCW 42.30.230.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2004–2024 · leading case: Loeffelholz v. Citizens for Leaders With Ethics & Acct. Now, 82 P.3d 1199 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Loeffelholz v. Citizens for Leaders With Ethics & Acct. Now, 82 P.3d 1199 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 42.30.040. RCW 42.30.120(1); Wood, 107 Wn.”
Donna Zink & Jeff Zink v. City of Mesa, 487 P.3d 902 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “” RCW 42.30.040. The statute does not define what is meant by “condition precedent.”
Loeffelholz v. Citizens for Leaders, 82 P.3d 1199 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “[113] RCW 42.30.040. [114] RCW 42.30.120(1); Wood, 107 Wash.”
Donna Zink, et ux v. City of Mesa (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “2d at 709 (quoting RCW 42.30.040). In doing so, this court cited to a 1998 attorney general opinion, which concluded that this provision precludes the banning of video or audio recording devices in meetings required to be open to the public under the OPMA unless it is necessary…”
Donna Zink, et ux v. City of Mesa (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “2d at 709 (quoting RCW 42.30.040). In doing so, this court cited to a 1998 attorney general opinion, which concluded that this provision precludes the banning of video or audio recording devices in meetings required to be open to the public under the OPMA unless it is necessary…”
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.