Print E-Mail AIM

Letters to the editor

The following are letters to the editor that appeared in the March 10 print edition of The Herald. To submit a letter, e-mail editor@puyallupherald.com. Please keep letters submissions to 250 words.

Open government ombudsman doesn’t make conclusions, provides information

(Re: “Council delves into budget priorities,” article and editorial, March 3)

I spoke with both The Herald and the city attorney. I informed both that I do not make conclusions of law regarding whether the city violated the Open Public Meetings Act. My role as an ombudsman is to provide general information and assistance to the public and also to agencies for compliance with the Public Records Act and the Open Public Meetings Act. I do not have investigative or enforcement powers.

The city Web site quoted me as saying “It’s unfortunate the paper characterized it as a violation.” At the time I made that statement, I had not seen the article but was told by the city that I was quoted in the article and that the headline accused the city of a violation. The quote on the city Web site was in reference to my concern that I not be quoted (by the newspaper) as making any conclusion of law as to whether the city violated the law.

Upon later review of the article, I don’t believe I was misquoted. The paper makes its own conclusions as to the city’s actions in its headlines.

However, clearly the paper made an effort to reflect that I don’t make conclusions of law. In the text of the article it stated: “Ford’s job description doesn’t allow him to make legal judgments or institute penalties against jurisdictions, he said.”

When a public meeting is adjourned (recessed but not finished), the city must follow the procedures in RCW 42.30.090. (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.30.090)

The law requires an order of adjournment to state the time which the meeting will reconvene.

Notice to the general public is accomplished as follows:

Whenever any meeting is adjourned, a copy of the order or notice of adjournment shall be conspicuously posted immediately after the time of the adjournment on or near the door of the place where the regular, adjourned regular, special or adjourned special meeting was held.

Additionally, notice must also be provided to the council members and the media:

. . . written notice of the adjournment to be given in the same manner as provided in RCW 42.30.080 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.30.080) for special meetings, unless such notice is waived as provided for special meetings.

RCW 42.30.080 states that notice is provided:

. . . by delivering written notice personally, by mail, by fax, or by electronic mail to each member of the governing body; and to each local newspaper of general circulation and to each local radio or television station which has on file with the governing body a written request to be notified of such special meeting or of all special meetings.

If an order of adjournment fails to state the hour, then the statutory remedy is explicit:

. . . it shall be held at the hour specified for regular meetings.

The Herald’s alleges that the city neither posted the new time for the adjourned meeting on the door, nor did it provide notice pursuant to RCW 42.30.080. The city feels it complied with the law because they announced the new meeting time when it adjourned.

Since I do not do fact finding, I merely provide the statutory language and how they should be interpreted. I will let you draw your own conclusions.

Tim Ford, Open Government Ombudsman, Assistant Attorney General for Government Accountability

Reader feels city manager owes an apology to Puyallup resident Robert Lord

(Re: “Residents entitled to receive public information, keep tabs on government” letter to the editor, Feb. 24)

It seems that the comment made by Puyallup City Manager calling Mr. Robert Lord a “bully” for requesting public information has become a nuisance.

As stated in the letter, “Mr. Lord honorably served his country as a United Sates Air Force Combat pilot and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.” He has earned the right to attend City council meetings and to use his three minutes to ask questions and seek answers without being referred to as a nuisance and/or a “bully.” He is well-respected by those who know him and has worked hard to improve his neighborhood in Puyallup.

I firmly believe our city manager owes Mr. Lord an apology for showing him disrespect for being a concerned citizen and taxpayer.

Lewis E. Pugh Jr., Puyallup