This is my personal opinion on this. Perhaps a lawyer could chime in.

The next move would probably just to file a legal complaint against the Department for violating the Open Meetings act. The state probably would ask for summary judgement, laying out why they can't do it. I would ask for discovery and request all transcripts the state had with the tribe about opening the meetings up, and then make a decision about going forth depending on what the state provides. It is my opinion that if both sides are required by law to negotiate, and one side lays down rules about how those negotiations take place, they should have a compelling reason for those rules. Next the tribe could require that all negotiations take place under what ever rules they want. Maybe they will insist the governor be present and that the State meet with the tribes on a different reservation each day (for fairness). They could insist the meetings take place in Paris and the state pay for transportation. "We will meet with you, but you must pick us up with a helicopter".
At what point do their requirements becomes unreasonable? The state has a legal obligation to meet. For the tribes to unilaterally set down rules that require the State to violate the law, their reasoning must take precedence over the states requirement. "I want or don't like" should not be enough. I feel a court would state that absent a compelling reason, reasonable accommodations must be made to comply with state law.

Good points, but in order for the "challenge" to be made, the State has to support open meetings, and they don't. They will tell you they do, but the reality is, if they wanted to make a point of having these meetings open, they could. Truthfully, they don't want these meetings open any more than the tribes. For Christ sake, the freaking Commissioners could just put it in the policy, that all meetings will have public oversight in the way of live stream video. But they won't.. they drank the Grossman flavored cool aid that transparency comes at cost, and that cost is to high a price to pay. Better to let the dumb ass rec fishermen whine and bitch rather than upset the tribes. After all, what real influence do the rec fishermen have...none. Now ask how much influence the millions of tribal money buys. Pretty easy to see why they just tell us to kiss their as$.

Having stood beside Baywolf as things transpired during the last year, I can attest to the fact that he's spot on, and absolutely right. The Commission passed on a golden opportunity to bring about the transparency they supposedly covet--and did so on the advice of the AAG's--who were more concerned about losing a court case than standing up for Rec fishermen's rights.

Take, for example, the loss of the Skokomish River to Rec opportunity three years back. How many years had fishing the river been an established fact? Certainly enough to support a legal precedent. As I write this, the AAGs are still "exploring their options and weighing their alternatives" to recover access to the river. You had it--they took it--and you've let it stand.

If you were a Tribal barrister right now--your future would be so bright, you'd have to wear shades...

I agree the state doesn't really want the meetings open. That doesn't matter. The law says they must be. In order to keep them closed, they rely on the tribes insistence. By suing, the state must explain why they have not insisted on the meetings be open. If they can prove they have exhausted all legal means to get them open, then they may be able to keep them closed. At that point, the issue could be dropped, or the plaintiff could as the court to make a decision on the merits of the tribes position. It should not be up to the state (who may or may not have a vested interest in keeping them closed) to make a decision on the merits of the tribes position. The department is likely stating that the Attorney General's office is independent and that they are relying on their interpretation. First thing would be to see if there is a determination by the Attorney general. That should come out in the original discovery. Second, there should be a determination if any such opinion is enough to free the State from pursuing the tribe in court, and then third, whether this decision is fundamentally sound.
If I had the time I would start by asking, in writing and in a certified letter, for the state to open the meetings. The state will deny this, hopefully in writing. Either way, I would then take this to the court system and make ask for an injunction to open up the meetings. At this point, the state would have to layout their case as to why they are not insisting or taking action to open the meetings. Just saying they tried should not be sufficient. Emails, letters, legal opinions, and other documentation should all be available to make a determination whether or not the state met their legal obligations.

(RCW 42.30.130
Violations—Mandamus or injunction.
Any person may commence an action either by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of stopping violations or preventing threatened violations of this chapter by members of a governing body.)

Under RCW 42.30.120, if it is apparent that the Department was lying about attempt to get the meetings open, they could personally be liable for civil penalties.

I think it would actually be real easy to get the ball rolling. To keep at it would likely take some time. The good thing is that if the court makes an initial ruling that the state had not been forthright in their attempts, any attorney fees and expenses should be paid by the department. That would free someone up to get an attorney on board.

Krijack, please read my manifesto. You just might be the one?

I submit a quote from Carcassman:
"It comes down to the honesty of each participant. Period."

Pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

Dealing with the State is akin to asking a liar if he's lying ... the answer means nothing ... abosolutely nothing.

So now the truth is out, that the process is not legitimate, completely corrupt on all sides.

Its interesting that the Governor, the commission and the AG seem to have exactly zero obligation to do anything in good faith for the people they serve.

The only explanation is corruption, its the only thing which makes any sense.

Its time to take serious action, like change leadership in this state and take things in a new direction.

I provided an alternative explanation above, but nobody seems to like that one (cause it's not what they want to hear). Now, maybe I'm wrong, but nobody has explained how "requiring" open meetings is going to help sportsmen if the tribes simply refuse.

It appears to me as though our present day bio's have painted us all in a corner. The sanctity of "wild fish" has ruined fishing for all. Congratulations. The solution is more fish and everyone knows it. Forget all of the excuses. We've heard them all over and over and over. Sorry fellas, but judging from where i stand the Dept doesn't even qualify for "useful idiot" status.

Sorry Gnomehead, this was not a conspiracy.
The Comission simply bought the Wdfw argument that this was not going to work.
Because it wasn’t going to work.

If honesty, transparency and fair representation of the citizens of Washington state does not work in the system that is set up than there is a huge problem much bigger than "fish and wildlife mismanagement".

Actually yes...and no.

Toby Nixon, Well respected lawyer and President of the Washington Coalition for Open Government explained that in order to mandate that the negotiations be open, all that would be required is for the Commission to put it in the policy. However, the policy is only advisory, so the Department could ignore that part, and nothing could be done.

Now the interesting part: IF the commission would of agreed to the conversion, there would of been a public input process. WE then could of asked for them to mandate the meetings be open. Then, IF they put it in the rule, it could not be ignored.

However, having open meetings "mandated" in a law still would not MAKE the tribes agree. It would just force the issue, since the department couldn't meet without it being open, since the department has to obey the law, but, the tribes do not. So, what happens then?

Well, then it goes to court for a judgment! Then the tribes can explain why the meetings should prohibit the public and the State is "Supposed" to argue why they want it open.

NOW THE INTERESTING THING:
The very person that strongly recommended that the Commission vote no, is the same person that told the Commission that "Confidentiality is actually GOOD" for management, and is the very same person that advised Director Unsworth that by-passing the Commission on details on the RMP was necessary, because the Commission IS subject to the Open Public Meetings Act and might have to let the public know what was going on if they were told. YES! THIS IS THE SAME GUY THAT IS SUPPOSED TO ARGUE WHY THE MEETINGS SHOULD BE OPEN!

Now, look at this: THIS SAME GUY'S PERFORMANCE EVAL PROBABLY HINGES ON AVOIDING LITIGATION! So, is there any surprise he is arguing and fighting against us? After all, he will kill anything that might start some conflict between the Department and the Tribes that could end in litigation! SO, It's apparent there are some people within the Department that DON'T WANT these meetings open anymore than the Tribes. WE Can't make the tribes do anything, but we can make the WDFW make themselves liable to the OPMA. IF the Commission really wanted these meetings open, they could very easily write it in the policy. They choose instead to use the AAG's recommendation to do the Tribes bidding.

I know you guys are getting pretty tired of me "beating this drum" about transparency in our fisheries. And I apologize that I keep sounding the alarm. I truly believe that the heart of all the problems in our Co-mamangement systems, starts with secrets!

IF IT WERE MANDATORY FOR EVERYTHING TO BE OUT IN THE OPEN, THEN A LOT OF THE BS IN THE FISHERIES WOULDN'T HAPPEN.

if we didn't have elected and appointed officials who are in the pockets of the "sovereign" tribes and were ethical and honest people, who had a better relationship with DC they could enact serious leverage on the tribes as the tribes are reliant on massive federal subsidies and for Law Enforcement to "turn the other cheek" on many cultural issues such as incest and pedophilia which is a mainstay in these "sovereign" communities.