The Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.30) does not require agencies to provide a period of public comment at all. Unless the meeting is subject to some other law (such as a public hearing on a land use issue), it is completely at the discretion of the body as to whether they allow for public comment, and, if they do, the point in the agenda at which it is accepted, the duration of comments permitted, etc. Also, again unless the matter is covered by some other law (such as land use hearings), the body is not required by law to consider the comments received. It’s a good idea for them to do so, particularly if they want to get re-elected (ignoring the opinions of your constituents is not usually good for political longevity), but it’s not required by law.

To the best of my knowledge, the meeting on April 7 was not a formal “public hearing” under GMA, SEPA, or any other law requiring public input. It was a “special meeting” under the OPMA with a specific agenda. It thus had no particular requirements on accepting or handling of public input. It is unlikely that any violation of law can be shown regarding the limitation on the duration of individual comments or the fact that written comments received during the meeting may not have been fully considered before the vote was taken.

Just to be clear, the foregoing is not a comment on the merits of Mr. Style’s remarks (indeed, I share his concerns about budget priorities and the need to get the continuing deficits under control), but just on the procedural issues. I will say that the information presented by city staff showed that annexation would not considerably exacerbate the deficits that would exist anyway, and could help alleviate them by providing a larger tax base on which future measures to close the budget gap would be effective.

Toby Nixon, Kirkland