9 year old’s question leads to civics lesson; July 28 court date

The below article I wrote last October for one of Vashon Island's two newspapers might be of interest to those who have wondered about the origins of my litigation against Ron Sims/King County. My successful lawsuit has been over long denied (4 years of denials), eventually admitted, violations of the state Public Disclosure Act, involving documents related to the sports stadiums (see: www.ArmenYousoufian.com and various other entries in this blog).

Note: some of the references are to schools, etc., on Vashon Island, where we have lived since 1981.

Text of article published in Vashon LOOP Newspaper on October 20, 2004:

9 year old’s question leads to civics lesson.

Kids ask amazing questions. But who would have guessed that a 1995 question - posed by our Harbor School 4th grader – would, after 9 years and three courtrooms, lead to a nearly $1 million potential lawsuit verdict against Ron Sims and King County! And for no less than violating the state Public Disclosure Act (PDA) by illegally withholding sports stadium documents - conduct that King County admitted to the state Supreme Court constituted “gross negligence” and deserved heavier fines than already levied.

Marysia’s October, 1995 question was simply: “I heard a reporter talk about a new baseball stadium. Wasn’t that just voted down last month?” Indeed it had – in a close vote. Then the legislature declared the threat of baseball leaving town was an “emergency to the public’s health or welfare”, and authorized the King County Council to build a stadium despite the vote. At a Seattle breakfast meeting, then King County Executive Gary Locke explained the “NO” vote was so close it really meant “YES” – that people wanted a stadium, but with a different tax mechanism than proposed. Locke said he knew how to restructure the deal. Another vote was unnecessary and there wasn’t time: the baseball team would leave town without a new ballpark. Locke said they really meant it! The rest is history.

By 1997 Marysia was in 6th grade at the Harbor School, and it was déjà vu all over again – now the football team wanted a stadium. The proposal included demolishing the Kingdome - inconveniently situated in the only spot where the football stadium could supposedly go (turned out to be untrue). Further, it was claimed the Kingdome was losing money, and would continue to do so (also not true). King County Executive Ron Sims claimed there were studies that said so, justifying his recommendation that we vote for the proposal.

Inspired by continuing civics lessons and stadium discussions with Marysia, I made a PDA request for the “studies” Ron Sims had mentioned on radio programs - studies that supposedly justified the public expenditures being contemplated, explained the economic benefits the new stadiums would generate, and would detail the Kingdome’s alleged losses. I also requested documentation on “how and why and by whom the studies were ordered”. I wanted to see if studies were “made as instructed” with rigged specifications, ordered from compliant consultants who would provide answers politicians wanted, etc.

My request, citing the PDA’s 5 day response requirement, occurred weeks before the June 17, 1997 statewide Paul Allen stadium vote. We now know many documents directly responsive to my request - that would have affected the election - were sitting on county employees’ desks and in their files. A judge later ruled I should have, and could have, received them within the legally required 5 days. But what did I get from King County? Nearly nothing. Nonsensical letters arrived, some signed by Sims. Inexplicable delays, then silence from the county, extended into 2001. I was “stonewalled”. Citizens voted without knowing that nearly 20 studies existed in the county’s files; that some studies said the proposal was a bad idea; that Paul Allen supplied the “instructions” for a critical, and arguably “made as instructed”, 1996 study that recommended a new stadium; that Allen had picked the consultant; and Allen paid most of the cost of what was being passed off as a study done for King County.

By 2001, I’d sued to get documents I believed existed. (Marysia was 15 and attending Holy Names Academy in Seattle.) Ultimately, King County employees admitted that documents requested in 1997 had been readily available.

In my opinion and that of reporters who’ve studied them and written about this saga, the documents show several studies were rigged to say what politicians wanted, and then exaggerated further by Ron Sims in public remarks, before the election, in ways that influenced the vote. Several critical studies were ordered from consultants hand-picked for the job, without competitive bidding, and without required waiver forms (per the county code) when doing so. One critical $250,000 study was completed without a contract, also violating King County Code. Paul Allen specified that consultant, provided the “instructions” for the study, paid most of its cost, and was the beneficiary of the recommendation it made to build a new stadium for him. (The study was represented as being done for the county.)

The lawsuit resulted in a record judgment in 2001 for the 32 year old PDA - $114,000. But legal expenses alone were approximately $150,000 and we still didn’t get all the documents. The judge OK’d partial disclosure. The results would have discouraged citizens from suing to get documents and encouraged agencies to withhold.

So I appealed – and won some more. In January, 2003, the Appellate Court ambiguously increased fines for the County’s “egregious conduct”. Still, they wouldn’t order the county to produce documents still being withheld, nor did they clearly hit King County hard enough to insure future compliance. Meanwhile, “helpful others” were finding documents in the County’s files (proving their existence) and turning them over to reporters, some of whom publicized the 1997 deception perpetrated on the public.

Still not satisfied, I appealed again. After nearly two more years, on September 30, the state Supreme Court delivered a victory on penalty issues, which could now approach $1 million. A “remand” back to Superior Court will re-determine fines higher than the appellate court awarded. Those proceedings might play out over the next year, and the result could be appealed.
Marysia is now nearly 19 and a frosh at the University of Washington. The civics lesson is not over. Before it’s done, besides at least one more courtroom battle, it’s likely the state legislature will consider changing the PDA to address the weaknesses this case has revealed.

You can learn more at www.ArmenYousoufian.com . (I especially recommend the Seattle Weekly’s February, 2003 expose, link from my website - www.ArmenYousoufian.com .) You can also google on my name - "Armen Yousoufian" - just like that, using the quotes (so as to not get information on others with either my first or last name), and get links to yet more articles.

Update:

To: all those who have been following my now over 8 year long saga and litigation against Ron Sims/King County over finally admitted violations of the Washington state Open Records Act, and production of records whose existence was denied for four years,

Subject: What is happening next that is available for the public to observe.

Item: Courtroom round #4 - back in King County Superior Court, under orders of remand from the Court of Appeals (January, 2003 decision) and Washington State Supreme Court (September, 2004 decision)

When: Thursday, July 28, 2004, 9 AM to Noon

Where: King County Courthouse, 3rd and James, downtown Seattle, courtroom of King County Superior Court Michael Hayden, Room East #863, Seattle

What: Since the state Supreme Court ruled in my favor in September, 2004 (the third, and increasingly favorable ruling in the course of this litigation), we have slowly been working our way toward another courtroom round - back in King County Superior Court, where it all began years ago.

On July 28, 2005 we will have a hearing which will pick up where the 2001 trial in King County Superior Court left off (under a different judge, as the original judge has since retired), as modified by the decisions in the Court of Appeals and the Washington Supreme Court. This proceeding will include oral argument by my attorneys (and rebuttal by King County's attorneys) as part of the process of the judge making a final determination of the level of daily penalties to be assessed against King County.

Please come and observe these proceedings, and show the court that the public is concerned about the Open Records, or Public Disclosure, Act.