Port commissioners must be held accountable
Thursday, March 20, 2008 5:49 AM PDT
Printable version
E-mail this articlePort of Longview commissioners violated the state's open meetings law last May, when they chose Roger Allen to replace former Commissioner Larry Larson. They winnowed applicants to two and drew Allen's name from a hat in executive session. The vote Commissioner Dan Buell and then-Commissioner Walt Barham later took in public had been determined behind closed doors.
The Daily News believes the port should be held accountable for this action and that's why the newspaper has joined a lawsuit filed on behalf of the Spokane-based public interest group Center for Justice. The suit seeks $100 fines from each of the two commissioners, payment of the plaintiff's legal fees and a court injunction prohibiting future violations of the Open Meetings Act.
The prevention of future violations is the purpose of this lawsuit. Greg Overstreet, an attorney in the law firm handling the suit, believes violations of the open meetings law are on the rise. Overstreet told Daily News city editor Andre Stepankowsky that, "Anecdotally, it seems like some governments don't see a downside to violating this law. They see lots of upsides to having conversations about controversial topics in secret." Overstreet hopes the suit will "send a message to governments across the state that there is a cost to violating the open meetings law."
The legal action also may serve to educate members of government bodies on their obligations under the law governing executive sessions. Although the law is fairly straightforward, the number of reported violations in the state - 460 between Jan. 1, 2004, and Nov. 13, 2007, according to Overstreet - suggest some misunderstanding of its requirements.
In the case at issue, the two commissioners and the port's legal counsel insisted long after the executive session that the action taken was not in violation of the law. The state Attorney General's Office disagreed, noting that narrowing the list of applicants and reaching a consensus behind closed doors was an improper use of executive sessions. "You can evaluate the qualifications of an applicant in executive session," Tim Ford, an assistant attorney general, explained at the time. "However, when a governing body decides to take final action, it must be in public."
Drawing the name of Larson's replacement from a hat was final action. The elimination of other applicants amounted to a final action. The two commissioners should have narrowed the list of applicants in public session and, when they couldn't agree on one applicant, drawn the name of the successful applicant in public session or passed the issue on to county commissioners, if they were unable to make the decision. That transparency is what the law demands. When public officials fail to follow the letter and spirit of the public meetings law, they should be held to account.
Past Month's Most Commented Stories