Local Open Government Blog : Open Government Law : Foster Pepper Law Firm : Northwest, Seattle, Spokane, Portland Lawyer & Attorney

Broad national survey of government integrity rolls out and raises questions, but we're number 3! New Jersey is number 1?! And Illinois, whose last governor just had a burger and went off to serve his 14-year corruption sentence, is somehow tied for 10th. [State Integrity Investigation]

Beware of your filing cabinets.  King County Sheriff gets dragged into City of Medina dispute with its fired police chief over public records copies in the Sheriff's hands. [Seattle Weekly]

Smaller and special purpose government boards like school districts and housing authorities still grapple with open public meeting compliance.  Free tip for the day: If your entire board is sitting in the same room and discussing the district's work, it's probably a meeting.  [Osage County Herald-Chronicle] [The Saratogian]

Now taking bets on the expected litigation bill for the City of Coos Bay fighting the Sierra Club over $16,700 in attorney fees the City tried to tack on for a public records request.  [Eugene Register-Guard]

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The tension between open meeting laws and laws restricting use of public property for political activities is highlighted by a reported incident out of the City of Sumner, Washington. According to the Tacoma News Tribune, a councilmember has filed a complaint with the State’s Public Disclosure Commission. The complaint is reported to assert the Mayor and other City officials allowed political speech (criticism of the councilmember who was running for a state legislative office) to continue at a public meeting of the Sumner City Council.

Washington, like many states, has a public meeting law that requires public access to meetings of a municipal governing body and related agencies. While public access does not grant a public right to speak at such a meeting (the public has a right to speak at public hearings, not meetings), local councils and commissions regularly provide for citizen comment at some time during a meeting’s agenda. The presiding officer of such a meeting can control the meeting to prevent improper conduct by a citizen. See Council Meeting Conduct and Citizen Rights under the First Amendment.

But, in addition to laws providing for open public meetings, many states prohibit the use of public facilities, funds and personnel to advocate for a political campaign or to support a ballot measure. See RCW 42.17.130, the Washington State law that address this issue. According to the News Tribune, the Sumner councilmember urged the Mayor to cut off a speaker at a city council meeting. The speaker was, according to the councilmember, using the council meeting to advocate for that councilmember’s opponent in the legislative race (and using the City facilities for political activity). The mayor, and apparently the rest of the city council, disagreed with the Councilmember under fire, and the speaker was allowed to continue. The Public Disclosure Commission will now decide whether to reconcile the potentially competing public policies of open public meetings and the prohibition on use of public facilities for campaign activity.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Washington Attorney General has called for legislation to create an administrative board to manage disputes over Public Record Act claims. The legislation is not likely to be considered until 2011. In an op-ed piece in Crosscut, AG Rob McKenna noted during "Sunshine Week" that this would save substantial costs when compared with the current process of litigation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks