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

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.30.120 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Each member of the governing body who attends a meeting of such governing body where action is taken in violation of any provision of this chapter applicable to him or her, with knowledge of the fact that the meeting is in violation thereof, shall be subject to personal liability in the form of a civil penalty in the amount of five hundred dollars for the first violation.
(2) Each member of the governing body who attends a meeting of a governing body where action is taken in violation of any provision of this chapter applicable to him or her, with knowledge of the fact that the meeting is in violation thereof, and who was previously assessed a penalty under subsection (1) of this section in a final court judgment, shall be subject to personal liability in the form of a civil penalty in the amount of one thousand dollars for any subsequent violation.
(3) The civil penalty shall be assessed by a judge of the superior court and an action to enforce this penalty may be brought by any person. A violation of this chapter does not constitute a crime and assessment of the civil penalty by a judge shall not give rise to any disability or legal disadvantage based on conviction of a criminal offense.
(4) Any person who prevails against a public agency in any action in the courts for a violation of this chapter shall be awarded all costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred in connection with such legal action. Pursuant to RCW 4.84.185, any public agency which prevails in any action in the courts for a violation of this chapter may be awarded reasonable expenses and attorney fees upon final judgment and written findings by the trial judge that the action was frivolous and advanced without reasonable cause.
[ 2016 c 58 s 1; 2012 c 117 s 126; 1985 c 69 s 1; 1973 c 66 s 3; 1971 ex.s. c 250 s 12.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · 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). · cites it 6× “RCW 42.30.120(1); Wood, 107 Wn. App. at 558 .”
Donna Zink & Jeff Zink v. City of Mesa, 487 P.3d 902 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 8× “030; former RCW 42.30.120(1) (1985). When a claim is against an individual member for personal liability, the plaintiff must prove a past violation, not an anticipatory violation, under element (4), and must also prove (6) the individual member had “knowledge of the fact that…”
Wood v. Battle Ground Sch. Dist., 27 P.3d 1208 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “RCW 42.30.120 (emphasis added). Thus, to enforce this provision, the party bringing the action must show (1) that a "member" of a governing body (2) attended a "meeting" of that body (3) where "action" was taken in violation of the OPMA, and (4) that the member had "knowledge"…”
Wood v. Battle Ground Sch. Dist., 107 Wash. App. 550 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “RCW 42.30.120 (emphasis added). Thus, to enforce this provision, the party bringing the action must show (1) that a “member” of a governing body (2) attended a “meeting” of that body (3) where “action” was taken in violation of the OPMA, and (4) that the member had “knowledge”…”
Arthur West v. Seattle Port Comm'n, 380 P.3d 82 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “RCW 42.30.120. *827 ¶14 The statute does not define “person” or limit the people eligible to bring claims under the act.”
Miller v. City of Tacoma, 979 P.2d 429 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 4× “lenged factual findings of the trial court; (2) whether the council violated the Open Public Meetings Act by conducting a series of ballots in executive session to arrive at a consensus candidate for appointment to the Tacoma City Planning Commission; and (3), if the Open Public…”
Miller v. City of Tacoma, 138 Wash. 2d 318 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 4× “llenged factual findings of the trial court; (2) whether the council violated the Open Public Meetings Act by conducting a series of ballots in executive session to arrive at a consensus candidate for appointment to the Tacoma City Planning Commission; and (3) if the Open Public…”
Eugster v. City of Spokane, 110 Wash. App. 212 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “re (Count 3); the Procedure violated the City Charter because it did not allow for majority selection of the new council member (Count 4); the Procedure violated Council rules by exceeding President Higgins’s authority (Count 5); and because it was not adopted as required by…”
Eugster v. City of Spokane, 39 P.3d 380 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “RCW 42.30.120(1). Presumably, the City would not indemnify a Council member if a personal civil penalty would be imposed.”
Loeffelholz v. Citizens for Leaders, 82 P.3d 1199 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 7× “2d 734 (1990) ("A majority of the members of a governing body are not prohibited from gathering together for purposes other than a regular or special meeting, so long as they take no `action.”
In re the Recall of Boldt, 386 P.3d 1104 (Wash. 2017). “RCW 42.30.120; see also Cathcart v. Andersen, 10 Wn.”
Eugster v. City of Spokane, 118 Wash. App. 383 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Eugster alone demands attorney fees under RCW 42.30.120 for his OPMA claim and generally.”
Show all 41 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.30.120(1) — 15 cases
Donna Zink & Jeff Zink v. City of Mesa, 487 P.3d 902 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “030; former RCW 42.30.120(1) (1985). When a claim is against an individual member for personal liability, the plaintiff must prove a past violation, not an anticipatory violation, under element (4), and must also prove (6) the individual member had “knowledge of the fact that…”
Miller v. City of Tacoma, 979 P.2d 429 (Wash. 1999). “lenged factual findings of the trial court; (2) whether the council violated the Open Public Meetings Act by conducting a series of ballots in executive session to arrive at a consensus candidate for appointment to the Tacoma City Planning Commission; and (3), if the Open Public…”
Miller v. City of Tacoma, 138 Wash. 2d 318 (Wash. 1999). “llenged factual findings of the trial court; (2) whether the council violated the Open Public Meetings Act by conducting a series of ballots in executive session to arrive at a consensus candidate for appointment to the Tacoma City Planning Commission; and (3) if the Open Public…”
Loeffelholz v. Citizens for Leaders With Ethics & Acct. Now, 82 P.3d 1199 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 42.30.120(1); Wood, 107 Wn. App. at 558 .”
Wood v. Battle Ground Sch. Dist., 27 P.3d 1208 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 42.30.120 (emphasis added). Thus, to enforce this provision, the party bringing the action must show (1) that a "member" of a governing body (2) attended a "meeting" of that body (3) where "action" was taken in violation of the OPMA, and (4) that the member had "knowledge"…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.30.120(2) — 15 cases
Loeffelholz v. Citizens for Leaders With Ethics & Acct. Now, 82 P.3d 1199 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 42.30.120(1); Wood, 107 Wn. App. at 558 .”
Loeffelholz v. Citizens for Leaders, 82 P.3d 1199 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “2d 734 (1990) ("A majority of the members of a governing body are not prohibited from gathering together for purposes other than a regular or special meeting, so long as they take no `action.”
Zink v. City of Mesa, 137 Wash. App. 271 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
Eugster v. City of Spokane, 110 Wash. App. 212 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “re (Count 3); the Procedure violated the City Charter because it did not allow for majority selection of the new council member (Count 4); the Procedure violated Council rules by exceeding President Higgins’s authority (Count 5); and because it was not adopted as required by…”
Eugster v. City of Spokane, 39 P.3d 380 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 42.30.120(1). Presumably, the City would not indemnify a Council member if a personal civil penalty would be imposed.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.30.120(3) — 3 cases
Arthur West v. Pierce Cnty. Council, 391 P.3d 592 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
R.L. McFarland v. Gregory A. Tompkins, 567 P.3d 1128 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
Jimmy Hilliard, Et Ux. v. Lewis Cnty. Water & Sewer Dist. 5 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.30.120(4) — 9 cases
Donna Zink & Jeff Zink v. City of Mesa, 487 P.3d 902 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “030; former RCW 42.30.120(1) (1985). When a claim is against an individual member for personal liability, the plaintiff must prove a past violation, not an anticipatory violation, under element (4), and must also prove (6) the individual member had “knowledge of the fact that…”
R.L. McFarland v. Gregory A. Tompkins, 567 P.3d 1128 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
Arthur West V. Walla Walla City Council, 567 P.3d 634 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
Arthur West, V. City Of Burien (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
Auto. United Trades Org., V Washington Pub. Discl (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
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.