Officials must heed call for openness

Our views

The Olympian | • Published March 20, 2008

• Links

If you listen to government officials, most will tell you that they follow the law and believe in openness and transparency.

Sometimes the record shows differently.

The Center for Justice, a Spokane-based public interest group and the Allied Law Group, an Olympia and Seattle law firm specializing in open-government issues, filed multiple lawsuits Monday accusing five agencies of violating the state’s public meetings law. The lawsuits were timed to coincide with Sunshine Week, a national campaign that stretches from last Sunday to this Saturday.

“The purpose of Sunshine Week is to draw national attention to the importance of open government and freedom of information,” said Breean Beggs from the Center for Justice. “Our open government audit project is a tool for open government in Washington, and these cases highlight our commitment and Allied Law Group’s commitment to challenging agencies to comply with the laws.”

The lawsuits are against:

• Yelm Fire District: The state Auditor’s Office audited the district in 2007 and found three violations of the Open Public Meetings Act. In one case, according to the audit, fire district commissioners deliberately had a workshop without providing notice to the public. One commissioner has admitted a closed session did not meet the intent or letter of the law.

• The Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency: When searching for a new executive director, the board (formerly the Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority) unwisely appointed three of its five members (a majority) to the search committee. The three members constituted a quorum yet the search committee’s meetings were not public. In addition, they narrowed down the list of candidates and selected the finalist in closed-door meetings.

• Arlington School Board: After the state auditor notified district officials of several violations of the Open Public Meetings Act, the school board amended its policies to require notice of all meetings, including so-called study sessions. Despite amending its own policies, and despite being notified by the auditor, the board is alleged to have continued to have meetings before the start of the official meetings announced to the public.

• Port of Longview: Two port commissioners needed to appoint a third commissioner. The attorney general ombudsman said when the two commissioners met behind closed doors to narrow the field from six candidates to two, it was a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act. The port commissioners could not decide between the two remaining candidates so they met in another executive session and picked a name out of a hat. That constituted a decision in a closed-door session, which is a violation of the law, according to the lawsuit.

• City of Ridgefield: Again, in a state review auditors found that on several occasions, the minutes of the City Council meetings did not reflect the presence of the city attorney for closed-door litigation-based executive sessions. The auditor admonished the city to comply with the Open Public Meetings Act.

In the lawsuits, the Center For Justice is asking the court to impose the remedies provided by the Open Public Meetings Act: to declare null and void any decisions made in violation of the law, to assess civil penalties of $100 against individuals who knowingly participated in violations of the law, to issue an injunction against future violations of the law and to award plaintiff’s costs and attorney’s fees.

In this week of emphasis on open and transparent government, elected officials across the state have been put on notice that they will be held accountable for their violations of the Open Public Meetings law.