The city council selection process is about to become less public than ever.

Over the weekend, city council members will narrow down their choices to fill council position #9; on Monday, the council will meet to name their picks, compile the lists, and narrow them down to approximately six finalists. Then, according to city clerk Judith Pippin, the council will likely recess the meeting, allowing council members to interview candidates in one-on-one, private meetings or go into a (closed) executive session to discuss the candidates’ qualifications.

I called City Attorney Tom Carr’s office to see what the law says about holding executive sessions to discuss a candidate for public office. Elected officials frequently go into executive sessions to discuss potential employees or board appointments, but it seems to me that a candidate for city council - someone who will represent me, as opposed to someone who merely works for me - is different.

As it turns out, there is such a law: RCW 42.30.110, which says governing bodies can go into executive session “to evaluate the qualifications of a candidate for appointment to elective office.” OK. So the executive sessions, though troubling (the council doesn’t plan to hold a single public meeting before making this very important decision) are legally defensible.

However: The RCW continues, “any interview of such candidate to elective office shall be in a meeting open to the public.”

Hmm. So how is it that council members are holding private meetings with council candidates when state law explicitly says that such meetings shall be public? City Attorney Tom Carr’s spokeswoman didn’t know; she’s getting back to me on that.

Meanwhile: Just because the council can talk about candidates in closed session, that doesn’t mean they should. From start to finish, the process of choosing a new council member will take just under three weeks. Shouldn’t a decision as important as this one involve at least a little public process?