From Paben
A new lawsuit asks a court to declare that Whatcom County Council broke state open public meetings law.
The lawsuit, filed in Whatcom County Superior Court, alleges that the County Council violated state open public meetings law withwhen email exchanges, the same thing state auditors previously said.
The new lawsuit, dated Feb. 16, was filed on behalf of Tim Paxton. It asks a court to declare that the County Council violated the law, and it asks for attorneys’ fees.
In a Feb. 23 letter to the county, the attorney representing Paxton, Greg Overstreet of Allied Law Group, said they’ll likely win, which will mean the county will have to pay their attorney fees. (Full disclosure: Allied Law Group has represented The Bellingham Herald and other newspapers in open government-related litigation).
“Right now, at the beginning of the case, Mr. Paxton’s attorney fees are relatively low – perhaps a few thousand dollars,” Overstreet wrote. “Mr. Paxton’s fees – that the county will ultimately pay – will substantially increase if further litigation is required.”
“This is entirely avoidable,” the letter goes on to say.
“If the county is concerned about conserving tax dollars, it will immediately contact me to work out a stipulated dismissal and admission of violation and thereby save the taxpayers thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of dollars,” the letter concludes.
The lawsuit comes after state auditors, in a letter to the county, said the council broke the law with email exchanges that involved matters that should have been discussed in an open public meeting. Click here to see my previous post about that.
On a different note, I’m not going to be very responsive over the next few weeks because I’ve been selected to serve on a jury. That means Monday through Thursday I’ll only be ducking into the office at lunch hours and in the early evenings. I will be working at The Herald on Fridays.
Two honest questions:
1) Who is Tim Paxton?
2) Since the conclusion sought has already been found by the state auditor, what is the purpose of the lawsuit? Will declaration allow some other action or process to occur? In other words, why is this not simply a transfer from taxpayers to a private group of lawyers?
I noticed the other night during the MRL session,
Councilman Crawford spent a minute or two whispering into Councilman Kremen’s ear while discussion was ongoing.
Not only did I think this kinda rude since the entire council was being addressed,
but also that what they were saying should have been made part of the record.
Wait…This sentence is missing something, so I can’t actually tell what the lawsuit alleges: “The lawsuit, filed in Whatcom County Superior Court, alleges that the County Council violated state open public meetings law when email exchanges, the same thing state auditors previously said.”
Stymied from being annoyed by crappy editing….
They broke the law again?
A (D)ecades Old Story.
No County Auditor and No Prosecuting Attorney, what else is new in the 4th Corner?
Good luck on the case Juror#47
Formerly Juror#9
Jury Reversed, and Remanded, a long running Kustom, Kangaroo Kounty Kourt.
The court did not engage in any meaningful review or balancing of the
defendant’s right to an impartial jury versus public trial rights. As such, we are
constrained by the Supreme Court’s opinion in State v. Strode, 167 Wn.2d 222, 217
P.3d 310 (2009) to reverse Hummel’s convictions and remand for a new trial. We also
address additional issues that may arise on remand.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
This might be the most pathetic, transparently self-serving and self-indulgent, sanctimonious, hypocritical, and senseless lawsuit of all time.
Ken Mann, we may agree again!
Like our local pathetic auditor, transparently a self serving hyprocritical, shown in Olympia’s Audits for decades.
http://media.bellinghamherald.com/static/images/downloads/JaredPaben/ML1006906.pdf
What does “internal controls” actually mean when your pathetic?
Has not been conducting an annual inventory of all capital assets as required by the Budgeting, Accounting and Reporting System (BARS) manual for entities reporting in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
• Is unable to provide evidence of a complete inventory of capital assets or small and attractive assets.
• Does not have adequate policies and procedures to ensure all capital assets are inventoried. Assets such as land, buildings, roads and bridges are not included in a physical inventory count. In addition, the policy is unclear on the frequency of asset counts.
Senseless, it Priceless!
Dewey Desler Returns?
(GAAP) usually between the ears, for someone who should be behind (BARS)
A few observations:
The entire County Council in 2011 broke State Law RCW 42.30.030. They were caught by the State.
Mr. Mann apparently had no problem breaking the law until caught. He could have privately or publicly chastised his fellow law breaking council members. He has already shown which side of the law he wants to operate on. Now he could be forced to admit guilt. Or, the County Council could fight it with tax payer money.
Their policy, internally and secretly, was to do public business in private emails, texts, phone calls.
Q: Does anyone really think that they are going to follow a toothless memo / policy written by the County Council if they don’t even bother to follow State law as it is?
If you are concerned about Open public process in the Coal Port decision process, you might
want to make sure the County Council thinks twice and actually follow the State Open Public Meetings Act law.
Ken, if some PDRs are ‘a pain’ then the simple long-term solution is to put everything on line in easily searchable databases. That’s where they should and could be — if Whatcom County ever manages to come to terms with its being the 21st, not the 19th or even 20th Century.
Having been involved as a citizen volunteer for over 2 years using (free) wordpress.com to provide reliable, timely, searchable, accessible and reasonably objective information about the Whatcom County Ferry system to my fellow citizens (and helping another citizen set up a permanent archive of ferry-system related documents, including ones dating back to the 1800s), I can assure everyone that *even someone who really isn’t very web savvy* (like myself) can do a great deal to make public information more … public, open and accessible. I and another islander took on that job (search for Lummi Island Ferry Forum) because Lummi islanders have over the years had basically NO success getting critical information about the ferry system from the County until some crisis is reached, until some deal is done and … it’s ‘too late’. We finally figured, OK — it’s time to stop waiting, roll up our sleeves and do the work ourselves. Clearly it was NOT something we could count on our county officials doing.
If the County is too fiscally strapped (or simply unwilling) to handle public records at least as well as citizens volunteers, well then, get a bunch of dedicated citizen communication fanatics and let THEM do the job that county officials can’t! Whatcom County has more than enough competent citizens who could develop such a system and interface it with County IT. Once great option would be to allow citizens to sign up (subscribe) to get emails when the County files new info on a topic of interest (including related Council agenda items).
Until Whatcom County catches up with how information is really being shared these days, citizens need to easily file PDRs (even ones that some officials huff at as being ‘onerous’) and get responses in a timely manner. The solution is NOT for officials (elected or appointed) to complain about citizens who seek information or ask them to pay again for work their tax dollars have already paid for — but to provide an easily accessible, up-to-date and searchable database with public records. Then PDRs wouldn’t be necessary, except in very rare cases.
The ‘problem’ of PDRs can be solved but not by keeping the old, outdated and totally inadequate system of handling public documents!
PS Tweets and chat records by councilors should be open records, too. It’s d’mned annoying to sit in the Council evening meetings and watch some Council member using his cell phone/blackberry/whatever to communicate who-knows-what to who-knows-whom. including when citizens are giving comments in open session. That’s very disrespectful to citizens and definitely NOT compliant with the intent of the open records law, even if the law hasn’t quite twigged to the fact that emails are SO ’20th Century’! )
Just think on line, what a concept!
State v Whatcom Court, clueless forever!
http://templeofjustice.org/cases/1891/2-wash-9/
And just think how many trees one could save, Paperless, Priceless!
Ken it is called a shakedown!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
If all the County Council’s juicy business gets done in secret meetings, emails, calls, etc. what in the world will be left for AFY to opine upon?
TIM – We exchanged emails about scheduling and blogs – it’s true. You caught us! Guilty!!
Interesting that we CC’d many other people on those emails in order to make sure it was in the public record.
If anybody bothered to read the emails that the State Auditor commented on, they would find that they are eminently boring. Nothing juicy, nothing secret, nothing nefarious. They are a public record after all – so if we wanted to be “secret” that is the stupidest place to do it.
Wynne – we are working on a social media policy and I agree it needs to be very robust. I suggested that we post *everything* immediately on a blog format. That was not well-received.
The bottom line is that if anybody wants to be underhanded, they can avoid public scrutiny – it’s called talking in person.
As for Mr. Paxton’s agenda or goals, nobody has any idea what he wants. Money? Political statement? Fame? Glory? He wants us to admit guilt? We already did that.
Maybe he wants to install self-destruct buttons on “Reply All” for all county computers.
Mr. Mann,
While I do not disagree with your statement regarding the merit(s) of the lawsuit, I can’t help but think it unwise for you to be commenting about it in a public forum such as this.
As someone representing the public, I feel compelled to assert that you have absolutely zero to gain
by emotionally charged rant(s), and definitely something to lose, rendering the comment(s) unwise.
Worst_Ever_43 – You are completely correct. I give that advice to others all the time. Thanks for the wise reminder.
Take a deep breath Ken. If you step back and imagine yourself in the public’s shoes, and think of all the crap that has been uncovered by public disclosure. People in government have pulled some pretty dastardly stuff, and gotten caught by the various public disclosure laws.
No, it is not fair that you or any other public official is painted with a broad brush that makes you responsible for the action s a few bad public officials, but can you really blame the public when everytime the discussion comes up about public disclosure the politicians begin to whine about the time wasted, and never balance out what the public finds with the only law they have to prevent abuse.
We love the public disclosure laws for some damn good reasons. One, is that we remember what abuse went on before they were enacted with overwhelming public support.
It would be nice is mistreatment of the public trust was uncovered more often by those running government, but the government even though it has an excellent view of its own documents and people, has an incredibly poor record of uncovering abuse.
If you compare the amount of public abuse uncovered by public disclosure laws versus abuse uncovered by government employees of their own, sadly there is no comparison.
I frankly don’t give a darn about Mr. Paxton’s goals. You folks got caught breaking the rules, Mr. Paxton did not, and you did not catch yourself, the public did.
Man up. (Sorry, I could not help myself)
Before you complain more, keep in mind that someday you will be a ordinary citizen again, and I am sure that you will appreciate the public disclosure laws even more then.
But Festus,
Ken’s an ordinary citizen Now.
And you just hit the nail square on all these issues, they think their special, especially those elected for life.
“I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety, and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire…”
Washington’s Farewell Address,
Man UP!
I love public disclosure laws. You have never heard me complain about their existence. In the right hands much good does come from them. We absolutely need those laws and need concerned citizens who are willing to spend the time to implement them.
What I deplore is the *abuse* of those laws for harassment or personal financial gain.
Agreed Ken.
One thing that has been turned into a science today is “taking advantage of the system”, there are many who are very proud to wear that shameful badge. Sadly it is nothing new.
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.”
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
Mr. Mann: “I love public disclosure laws.” ??
Just for clarification, the lawsuit is about violating the Open Public Meetings Act RCW 42.30.030. The only enforcement is citizen enforcement via lawsuit in Superior Court, and the court of public opinion.
I will note that ALL the County Council members seemed to be OK with this illegal secret meeting tactic, including Mr. Mann. How many other secret council policy meetings have been held? Via phone, tweet, text, email, etc.
Many people seriously doubt that that a Council which violates State Law without hesitation will even remember some obscure memo/policy about running public meetings in secret in the future.
If only Mr. Mann were as good at finding errant public officials as he is finding the harrassers of those good public servants.
When a politician abuses the public, I wonder how loud Mr. MANN HOWLS THEN.
Now it’s harassment and abuse?
WRONG AGAIN KEN!
RCW 9A.80.010
Official misconduct.
(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:
(a) He or she intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or
(b) He or she intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him or her by law.
(2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor.
Mirror Mirror on the wall, who “shall establish procedures” for all?
Tooooooo much information, has confused em for decades?
Home Rule, means “refrain from the duty” and any old Golden Retriever could catch this one.
Section 9.60 Information Management.
The County Executive shall establish procedures for maintaining a modern, efficient system for processing, maintaining and disposing of information and records; shall maintain a means to store and maintain, in retrievable manner, all County records which should not be destroyed and which are not necessary for the current operation of County government; and shall provide needed services for all branches of County government in a way that shall be deemed desirable for the efficient operation of the County government.
These procedures shall be in compliance with general law and shall affect all departments of the County, elective or appointed. (Ord. 2005-075 Exh. A)
He that lieth down with dogs, shall rise up with fleas.
–Ben Franklin
That doesn’t even work as a metaphor
since the fleas would much rather stick with the dependable host they already have.
Plus corruption isn’t a contagious disorder
no matter how closely one sleeps with the corrupt.
You can read my interview with Tim Paxton about his lawsuit here: http://sweeneypolitics.com/2012/02/29/an-interview-with-tim-paxton/
rubie,
We’re on!
Too many dog’s, not enough fleas.
ARTICLE 9. The said tribes and bands acknowledge their dependence on the Government of the United States, and promise to be friendly with all citizens thereof, and they pledge themselves to commit no depredations on the property of such citizens. Should any one or more of them violate this pledge, and the fact be satisfactorily proven before the agent, the property taken shall be returned, or in default thereof, of if injured or destroyed, compensation may be made by the Government out of their annuities. Nor will they make war on any other tribe except in self-defence, but will submit all matters of difference between them and the other Indians to the Government of the United States or its agent for decision, and abide thereby. And if any of the said Indians commit depredations on other Indians within the Territory the same rule shall prevail as that prescribed in this article in cases of depredations against citizens. And the said tribes agree not to shelter or conceal offenders against the laws of the United States, but to deliver them up to the authorities for trial.
“but to deliver em up to the authorities for trial.” Issac Stevens 1st at West Point, along with Chief Justice Marshall, 1st at Valley Forge, with George
“…From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the consti- [5 U.S. 137, 180] tution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.
Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!
The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: ‘I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.’
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him.
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
The rule must be discharged.
GAAP, from Webster’s Dictionary, a lawyer who could read?
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=24
Gibson v. Gibbons? The 4th Corner, a self evident truth!
“After the State of New York denied Gibbons access to the Hudson Bay, he sued Ogden.”
Henry Hudson, what did he find on 9/11
Plead the 5th!
ARTICLE 5. The right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory,
The Silver Reef, new and improved “usual and accustomed grounds and stations” Slater and Haxton?
Yummie Yummie, in my Tummy?
47. Reef net locations were owned by individuals who claimed proprietary rights by virtue of inheritance in the male line. These locations constituted very valuable properties to their native owners. [Ex. USA-30, pp. 6, 20, 21; Tr. 2036, l. 10-16; Tr. 2039, l. 19 to 2041, l. 20] Some of the Lummi signers of the treaty were owners of reef net locations. Lummi Indians who were present at the Point Elliott Treaty Council later asserted that the Lummi signers had received assurances there that they would continue to hold the rights to their fishing grounds and stations, including their reef net locations.
Barbara Brenner v. http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/rothstein
It’s fun to watch, or read, Barbara Write; “unresolved” which Barbara do you believe?
Fishin for Tuition?
The Court of Queen’s Bench even went so far as to decide, notwithstanding a verdict the other way, that when fish were nearly surrounded by a seine, with an opening of seven fathoms between the ends, at which point boats were stationed to frighten them from escaping, they were not reduced to possession as against a stranger who rowed in through the opening and helped himself. But the difference between the power over the object which is sufficient for possession, and that which is not, is clearly one of degree only, and the line may be drawn at different places at different times on grounds just referred to. Thus we are told that the legislature of New York enacted, in 1844, that any one who started and pursued deer in certain counties of that State should be deemed in possession of the game so long as he continued in fresh pursuit of it, and to that extent modified the New York decisions just cited. So, while Justinian decided that a wild beast so Judge Lowell, with equal reason, has upheld the contrary custom of the American whalemen in the Arctic Ocean, mentioned above, which gives a whale to the vessel whose iron first remains in it, provided claim be made before cutting in.