lawsuit; County served April 14, changes policy on copies April 15

[Land Shark]

In thursday's and Friday's developments, all parties are now served, with service on Auditor Terwilliger's assistant on April 14, around 9:30 A.M.

On april 15 during the late morning, an expected response on a public disclosure act request was received. included within that response was a to/from list of documents along with the number of pages for each, without description of the subject matter. But, i was going to go in and inspect anyway.

Also included was a statement that when the county previously had allowed a scanner to be brought in as a (free) method of inspecting documents and getting scans at the same time, the county had discovered that they had 'illegally' allowed that, and would not require that documents either be inspected with eyes only, or purchased at 25 cents a page.

The public disclosure act expressly limits charges to 15 cents a page, unless a study has been done establishing that defined expenses are indeed higher than 15 cents a page. Snohomish claims to have done such a study, but it is an open question whether or not expenses that are not legally attributable to public records requests are included in the 25 cent rate, which is high given the purposes of the public disclosure act.

Interesting development. The $5 million dollar contract with Sequoia had an exception made so that it could be sole sourced (i.e. not competitively bid). More on this when the documents are available on Monday.

Links: pleadings for April 7 lawsuit, contract, and study are all downloadable at www.votersunite.org

lehto&Wells v Sequoia lawsuit
PO Box 254
everett, Wa 98206
[email protected]

[Wilms]

1. Secret AND Non-Competitive.

Relieve the People.

Thanks Land Shark

[LatePeriduct]

11. kick

[LatePeriduct]

16. kick

[emlev]

2. I guess they couldn't let you bring a scanner because...

...it might contain proprietary software and that would be a breach of the public trust?!

[claudiajean]

3. A scanner has been used to copy PDA released docs in King Co as recently,,

...as this past Tuesday.

I know of a local Republican bigwig who can personally vouch that he has done it in King, and Andy Stephenson, among others, on the Democratic side of the aisle who have also scanned PDA copies into their own laptops for free in King.

So how does Sideshow Bob justify his own special rules up north?

If they have done a study, and that's a big "if", I wonder if they included staff time in pulling and organizing the documents for inspection in their time/cost study, as staff time is expressly banned from any cost calculations for copies, per statute.

And what are they gonna do if someone starts taking photos with their phone?

As far as the contract exception, I think you'll find the exception relates to an obscure RCW section which allows equipment used in the production of ballots to waive the usual purchasing rules and be sole-sourced. The same section was used to justify ballots sole-sourced from Diebold in King....

[Land Shark]

4. Regarding scanners, sent out this email to the county

To: BOB TERWILLIGER, county auditor
And: LISA GOLDSWORTHY, public records officer

On Friday, just before leaving for a week, Lisa Goldsworthy informed me via email that I had been previously allowed to inspect, and then scan at my own expense, “illegally”, and that therefore in the future I would not be allowed to bring in my own scanner and would have to either inspect documents visually or pay 25 cents a copy. She referenced an unspecified rule or ordinance but would have to get back to me on which one it was.

I question whether any ordinance could legitimately deny the use of the scanner, given that the authority to reasonably regulate public access is expressly limited in RCW 42.17.290 to ‘reasonable rules and regulations … consonant with the intent of this chapter to provide *full public access* to public records…”

Given this policy of full public access, RCW 42.17.300 states that ‘No fee shall be charged for the inspection of public records. No fee shall be charged for locating public documents and making them available for copying. A reasonable charge may be imposed for providing copies and for the use by any person of agency equipment….”

This language above contains two underlined phrases that make clear that it is contemplated that the public may both use “agency’ copiers as well as their own, whenever the agency is ‘making available for copying’ without charge. There are also numerous examples of this procedure actually occurring, even specifically with regard to election materials.

Although I have not seen any purported rule or ordinance, it would appear that any rule or ordinance drafted that would have the effect of prohibiting scanners would be antithetical to the express purpose of the PDA. I would ask that this policy shift be reconsidered, particularly since it is happening so soon after an exercise of my constitutional right to petition for redress of grievances. Thank you.

[Melissa G]

7. Kick Butt Response! Enjoying the Blow by Blow enormously!

:popcorn: Glad to have you fighting for our rights. You are a true Patriot and an excellent reporter! :patriot: :loveya:

[Chi]

12. Thats the old definition of 'public records'......

You must use the new definition, passed 4:15 AM on Easter Sunday.

"Public record shall be defined as a document about public behavior, not as a record available to public review. Any request for said records will be made available for the cost of 1 limb"

Welcome to JesusLand.

Get 'em Land Shark

[Land Shark]

13. Welcome to the new world of 'public' service!

i'd say it was orwellian but as a biology major i've seen animals get 'serviced' this way, so it's not necessarily standing for its opposite.

[Wilms]

5. kick n/t

[Wilms]

6. kick n/t

[Wilms]

8. n/t

[Melissa G]

9. kickin' for Landshark! n/t

[LatePeriduct]

10. kicked

[mod mom]

14. Fight on Landshark. Thanks for the updates! nt

[LatePeriduct]

15. kick

[Amaryllis]

17. kick