Opinion ID: 3006469
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Acts on behalf of

Text: The OPMA applies to committees only under certain circumstancesspecifically, when the committee acts on behalf of the governing body, conducts hearings, or takes testimony or public comment. RCW 42.30.020(2). We focus on the meaning of the phrase acts on behalf of because CAPR has not alleged that 1 The 1986 AGO opinion does not address the issue of whether a group can be a committee thereof with respect to a governing body if the group consists entirely or mostly of a governing body's members but was not created or authorized by the governing body as a whole. We need not reach that question in this case because the record shows that the participants in CAO team meetings consisted primarily of nonmembers of the Council. 9 Citizens Alliance for Property Rights Legal Fund v. San Juan County, No. 90500-2 the CAO Team engaged in any of the other three enumerated activities. Here, we agree with the 1986 AGO opinion that acts on behalf of refers to situations where a committee exercises actual or de facto decision-making authority for a governing body. This construction is supported by two fundamental principles of statutory construction: the use of different terms in a statute suggests a different meaning for each term and all language in a statute must be given effect. When the legislature uses two different terms in the same statute, courts presume the legislature intends the terms to have different meanings. Densley v. Dep't of Ret. Sys., 162 Wn.2d 210, 219, 173 P.3d 885 (2007). Here, the legislature used different words to describe when committees are subject to the OPMA (when the committee acts on behalf of the governing body) than when it specified that meetings are subject to the OPMA (when action is taken at the meeting). RCW 42.30.020(2), (4). While the OPMA defines action quite broadly, see RCW 42.30.020(3), the use of different words in the definition of governing body · suggests that the legislature intended the phrase acts on behalf of to carry a narrower meaning. Moreover, '[s]tatutes must be interpreted and construed so that all the language used is given effect, with no portion rendered meaningless or superfluous.' G-P Gypsum Corp. v. Dep't of Revenue, 169 Wn.2d 304, 309, 237 P.3d 256 (201 0) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. J.P, 149 Wn.2d 444, 450, 69 P.3d 318 (2003)). Here, construing acts on behalf of as covering all deliberations of a committee would render the remainder of the definition superfluous. As the AGO explained: 10 Citizens Alliance for Property Rights Legal Fund v. San Juan County, No. 90500-2 If the Legislature intended a broad interpretation of the phrase acts on behalf of, it simply would have added the words or any committee thereof to the definition of governing body. Had the Legislature done so, a committee would have been subject to the Act on the same basis as the governing body itself-whenever it conducts a meeting at which action is taken. However, the Legislature also added the phrase when the committee acts on behalf of the governing body, conducts hearings, or takes testimony or public comment. These words would be rendered meaningless if a committee is required to comply with the Act when it holds a meeting where action is taken. Under this language a committee of a governing body is required to comply with the Act only when the committee acts on behalf of the governing body, conducts hearings, or takes testimony or public comment. We also note that the Legislature selected the word acts instead of the word action, which is broadly defined in RCW 42.30.020(3). If the Legislature intended the phrase acts on behalf of to be broadly construed we believe it would have used the word action. 1986 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 16, at 9. As the 1986 AGO opinion acknowledged, while this statutory context strongly suggests that the legislature intended a narrow meaning of acts on behalf of, the term could also reasonably be construed more broadly as referring to all instances when the committee performs a specified function in the interest of the governing body. /d. at 7. To the extent that a term in a statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable meaning, we may consider the statute's legislative history. Campbell & Gwinn, 146 Wn.2d at 12. In this case, however, the legislative history behind the statute leads to the same conclusion: the phrase acts on behalf of does not extend to the work of purely advisory bodies. An early version of the OPMA 1983 amendment would have defined governing body as including any committee thereof if the committee is authorized 11 Citizens Alliance for Property Rights Legal Fund v. San Juan County, No. 90500-2 to act on behalf of the governing body in conducting hearings, taking testimony or public comment, or deliberating the making of policy or rules. S.B. 3206, at 1-2, 48th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 1983) (emphasis added). The above-emphasized final phrase was stricken from the definition of a substitute bill, strongly suggesting that the legislature did not intend to extend the OPMA to committees that do nothing more than deliberate the making of policy or rules. 1986 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 16, at 10. A colloquy on the House floor during the discussion of the amendment further suggests this narrower construction of acts on behalf of reflects the intent of the legislature: Mr. Isaacson: 'What are the requirements with respect to giving formal notice?' Ms. Hine: 'It's the intent of the legislation, we believe, subject to the deliberations of the governing body, that this apply only to deliberations of the governing body or subcommittees which the governing body specifically authorizes to act on its behalf, or which [sic] policy, testimony, or comments are made in its behalf. In Other Words, It's When Making Policy Or Rules, Not For General Comments Or Any Kind Of Informal Type Meeting They May Have. Those would not require the official formal notice.' !d. at 11 (quoting 1 HousE JOURNAL, 48th Leg., Reg. Sess., at 1294 (Wash. 1983)). Taking the plain meaning of the statute together with this legislative history, the AGO concluded that a committee acts on behalf of the governing body when it exercises actual or de facto decisionmaking authority for the governing body. /d. at 8. We agree and adopt the AGO's construction of acts on behalf of as set forth in its 1986 AGO opinion. The OPMA therefore does not extend to advisory committees and other entities that do nothing more than conduct internal discussions and provide advice or information to the governing body. 12 Citizens Alliance for Property Rights Legal Fund v: San Juan County, No. 90500-2