Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.36.060 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

During the pendency of any quasi-judicial proceeding, no member of a decision-making body may engage in ex parte communications with opponents or proponents with respect to the proposal which is the subject of the proceeding unless that person:

(1) Places on the record the substance of any written or oral ex parte communications concerning the decision of action; and

(2) Provides that a public announcement of the content of the communication and of the parties' rights to rebut the substance of the communication shall be made at each hearing where action is considered or taken on the subject to which the communication related. This prohibition does not preclude a member of a decision-making body from seeking in a public hearing specific information or data from such parties relative to the decision if both the request and the results are a part of the record. Nor does such prohibition preclude correspondence between a citizen and his or her elected official if any such correspondence is made a part of the record when it pertains to the subject matter of a quasi-judicial proceeding.

[ 1984 c 191 s 1; 1982 c 229 s 6.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2023 · leading case: Org. to Preserve Agric. Lands v. Adams Cnty., 913 P.2d 793 (Wash. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Org. to Preserve Agric. Lands v. Adams Cnty., 913 P.2d 793 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 5× “” RCW 42.36.060 (emphasis added). The statute specifically provides, however, that no decisionmaker will be disqualified "for conducting the business of his or her office with any constituent on any matter other than a quasi-judicial action then pending before the local…”

Snohomish Cnty. Improvement All. v. Snohomish Cnty., 808 P.2d 781 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “060 prohibits ex parte communication in quasi-judicial proceedings and provides as follows: During the pendency of any quasi-judicial proceeding, no member of a decision-making body may engage in ex parte communications with opponents or proponents with respect to the proposal…”

Bunko v. City of Puyallup Civil Serv. Comm'n, 975 P.2d 1055 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine RCW 42.36.060 provides: During the pendency of any quasi-judicial proceeding, no member of a decision-making body may engage in ex parte communications with opponents or proponents with respect to the proposal which is the subject of the…”

West Main Assocs. v. City of Bellevue, 742 P.2d 1266 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “2d 832 (1969); RCW 42.36.060, and since council member Keeffe was observed having an ex parte conversation with an opponent of the project, the appearance of fairness doctrine was violated.”

Bjarnson v. Kitsap Cnty., 899 P.2d 1290 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “RCW 42.36.060. However, even if all of the members of a decision-making body are disqualified on the basis of the appearance of fairness, the body may act where participation is necessary to obtain a quorum and the member or members disclose publicly the basis for…”

Org. to Preserve Agr. v. Adams Co., 913 P.2d 793 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 5× “" RCW 42.36.060 (emphasis added). The statute specifically provides, however, that no decisionmaker will be disqualified "for conducting the business of his or her office with any constituent on any matter other than a quasi-judicial action then pending before the local…”

Families of Manito v. City of Spokane, 291 P.3d 930 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 42.36.060. ¶47 As a preliminary note, the hearing examiner did not make a finding that it was proper for the city planner to make such a decision.”

Bunko v. Civil Serv. Com'n, 975 P.2d 1055 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE RCW 42.36.060 provides: During the pendency of any quasi-judicial proceeding, no member of a decision-making body may engage in ex parte communications with opponents or proponents with respect to the proposal which is the subject of the…”

John Worthington, App./cross-res. v. Wa State Liquor & Cannabis Bd., Res/cross-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Worthington also cited RCW 42.36.060, prohibiting ex parte communications in quasi-judicial proceedings, and Smith v.”

Judith Zimmerly, V. Columbia River Gorge Comm'n (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “2d 793 (1996) (quoting RCW 42.36.060(1)). “The purpose of the disclosure requirement is to provide opposing parties with an opportunity to rebut the substance of any ex parte communications.”

Bridgeport Way Cmty. Ass'n v. City of Lakewood, 203 F. App'x 64 (9th Cir. 2006). “Wash. Rev. Code § 42.36.060 ; see also Lakewood MumCode tit.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.36.060(1) — 3 cases

Org. to Preserve Agric. Lands v. Adams Cnty., 913 P.2d 793 (Wash. 1996). “” RCW 42.36.060 (emphasis added). The statute specifically provides, however, that no decisionmaker will be disqualified "for conducting the business of his or her office with any constituent on any matter other than a quasi-judicial action then pending before the local…”

Org. to Preserve Agr. v. Adams Co., 913 P.2d 793 (Wash. 1996). “" RCW 42.36.060 (emphasis added). The statute specifically provides, however, that no decisionmaker will be disqualified "for conducting the business of his or her office with any constituent on any matter other than a quasi-judicial action then pending before the local…”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.36.060(2) — 2 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.