Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723448.pdf

Ellensburq Cement, 179 Wn.2d at 743.

When interpreting a statute, our objective is to ascertain and give effect to

legislative intent. Ellensburq Cement. 179 Wn.2d at 743. Statutory interpretation

begins with the plain meaning of the statute. Lake v. Woodcreek Homeowners Ass'n,

169 Wn.2d 516, 526, 243 P.3d 1283 (2010). When the meaning of statutory language

is plain on its face, we give effect to that plain meaning as an expression of legislative

intent. City of Spokane v. Spokane County. 158 Wn.2d 661, 673, 146 P.3d 893 (2006).

If the plain language is subject to only one interpretation, our inquiry is at an end. Lake.

169Wn.2dat526.

14
             
No. 72344-8-1/15

We construe a statute " 'so that all the language used is given effect, with no

portion rendered meaningless or superfluous.'" Rapid Settlements. Ltd. v. Symetra Life

Ins. Co., 134 Wn. App. 329, 332, 139 P.3d 411 (2006) (quoting Prison Legal News. Inc.

v. Dep't of Corr.. 154 Wn.2d 628, 644, 115 P.3d 316 (2005)). We " 'must not add words

where the legislature has chosen not to include them.'" Lake. 169 Wn.2d at 526

(quoting Rest. Dev.. Inc. v. Cananwill. Inc.. 150 Wn.2d 674, 682, 80 P.3d 598 (2003)).

We consider a provision "within the context of the regulatory and statutory scheme as a

whole." ITT Rayonier. Inc. v. Dalman. 122 Wn.2d 801, 807, 863 P.2d 64 (1993) (cited in

Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn. LLC. 146Wn.2d 1, 10-11, 43 P.3d 4 (2002)).

We avoid an interpretation that results in unlikely or strained consequences. Brouqhton

Lumber Co. v. BNSF Rv., 174 Wn.2d 619, 635, 278 P.3d 173 (2012).

The plain and unambiguous intent of the Local Government Whistleblower