6427 BEVERLY LN 2016-01-01 MF Import

tdo. 116n-I session, petitioner was denied a fair hearing There is no claim that any party adversely intcrested participated in the executive session held by tY�e board. It is undisputed that petitioner was given an opportunity to present his views during the public hearing preceding the executive session. If the board, during its executive session, permitted participation by perscns other than members of the board and its secretary withouc at the same time permitting participation by petitioner, the hearing would not have been a fair one. See Chrobuck v. Snohomish County, 78 Wn.2d 858, 884, A80 P.2d 989 (1971); Smith v. S}:aqit CountY, 75 i9n.2d 715, 953 P.2d 632 (1971).1 Howevcr, such cases, under the law then in effect, did not preclude the board itself from sitting in executive session with its secretary for t.he pi:r.pore of discussing the problems r.aised by the building inspector's permit and coming to a conclusion honestly believed by it to be appropriate. �9hen the board meets under such circumstances, it has already had the benefit of the presentation of the interested parties. In executive session it seeks to evaluate the presentation and make a determination with internal ; staff assistance. We cannot say that such conduct is either unreasonable, arbiirary or capricious within tl�e meaning of the Washington cases defining these terms. See State ex rel. Kadow v. Bd. of Adjus•, supra. Pet�*ioner finally contends he was discriminated against when he was d�nied the permit he sought. He argues that permits had been granted to many of the licensed ham operators in the 1The ]aw now provides that all meetings of a qoverning board or an agency shall be open to the public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any such meeting. Laws of 1971, lst Ex. Sess., ch. 250, § 1. '�