Did some Bellevue City Council members violate state's law on open meetings?

Some members of the Bellevue City Council faced accusations this week that they violated the state's open-meetings law.

The charge arose during a meeting earlier this week about light-rail routes in South Bellevue. For the past month, the City Council has had contentious debates about switching its endorsement on a light-rail route.

Last week, the council directed city staff to draft a letter to Sound Transit explaining the change in its position. Some drafts circulated via e-mail, members said, and before Monday's council session, council member Claudia Balducci said she stumbled on a gathering of council members Kevin Wallace, Jennifer Robertson and Deputy Mayor Conrad Lee. During the council's session later that evening, she asked the three to explain why they had met outside of the council.

The council later voted 4-3 to change its preference to the South Bellevue light-rail route known as B7 that would run parallel to I-90.

A quorum, or in Bellevue's case, a majority of four, is considered a meeting under the state's Open Public Meetings Act. The law requires open meetings of public governing bodies, and it applies to discussions and deliberations leading up to, and including, votes.

Robertson said Wallace just showed them a draft of the letter to Sound Transit.

Council member John Chelminiak said it didn't matter whether a decision was made, but that the debate and discussion about the letter should have been public and not via e-mail or in private discussions among council members, even if it was not a majority. He said it appeared to be a "blatant violation" of the law.

"You can't have a debate outside of the realm of the public, and it seems clear from the discussion that's gone on here that that has occurred," he said. "I'm very bothered by it, and I want it to stop."

But Mayor Don Davidson said that without a majority, he did not think there was a violation with just three council members.

"As long as I'm not sitting there helping them and making it four," he said.

But Michael Reitz, general counsel for public-policy group Evergreen Freedom Foundation, said a discussion among three members discussing a draft of a document was problematic and a possible violation of the law. It is then possible to bring in a fourth person and make a majority decision out of public view, he said.

"It's the fact that they're taking action and deliberating over some specific document and not in a public setting that's really the problem," Reitz said. "There's a little bit of gray area, but it's the kind of deliberation that's supposed to happen publicly."

Tim Ford, assistant attorney general for government accountability, said he didn't see a violation without a majority of the council.

But public perception also is important, he said.

"If this is a matter that's set for public hearing, then why not wait until the public hearing to have that discussion, even if it is legal?" he said.

Davidson said he spoke with the city attorney after Monday's session, and said the council probably should meet to discuss open-meeting laws.

Nicole Tsong: 206-464-2150 or ntsong@seattletimes.com