Spokane Reporter wins Public Disclosure Act lawsuit

Here is another victory for the "disclosure side" of Public Disclosure Act lawsuits in Washington State. This involves a case that goes back years, and involves documents related to a "sweetheart" lease of a publicly subsidized, large concrete structure, involving what appears was a "rigged" economic study, all to benefit an already wealthy private party who has political influence over the decisions of the local politicians who influenced the deal happening in the first place. Sound familiar? No, it's not the Paul Allen football stadium that is at the heart of my quest for documents and my Public Disclosure Act case. Instead, it's a parking garage in Spokane, called the "River Park Square" project. If you don't know about this case, and the striking parallels to my own case, there's lots of material about it at www.camasmagazine.com. (Look for the stories re: "RPS", "Cowles", "Siddoway", etc., or just start reading as virtually every article at the home page is on River Park Square).

Btw, Tim Connor is a fine, long-time, award winning, investigative reporter who has dogged the RPS deal.

As one Spokane city councilwoman, Cherie Rogers, puts it (per a 2004 Camas Magazine article):

"In interviews with Camas, the councilwoman said the River Park Square public/private partnership was a "scam" and that city hall sold the people of Spokane down the river. Now city hall was trying to cover up its actions with yet another emergency ordinance that precluded a popular vote and pledged a whole new round of public indebtedness to pay off a deal that could never be anything but a bad deal, that could only go from bad to worse to deplorable."

Link to the Washington Supreme Court opinion (good for 14 days, or until approximately August 26, 2005) is: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=755779MAJ

Below is the article from today's Seattle Times, and link to it:


Reporter wins records lawsuit
Full story:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002435778_riverpark12m.html

By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS
The Associated Press



SPOKANE -- The state Supreme Court yesterday overturned lower-court decisions
that denied legal fees and penalties to an investigative reporter who sued the
city of Spokane for withholding documents regarding the River Park Square
shopping mall.

In a unanimous decision, Justice Richard Sanders wrote that the trial court and
the state Court of Appeals were wrong to dismiss journalist Tim Connor's claims
as moot and deny fees and penalties. The state's Public Disclosure Act (PDA)
required that Connor receive the documents he had requested and called for
financial penalties if documents were denied, Sanders wrote.

"Judicial oversight is essential to ensure government agencies comply with the
PDA," he wrote.

The court sent the case back to Spokane County Superior Court to determine the
fees, costs and sanctions.

Connor is senior editor of Camas Magazine, an online publication that
specializes in critical looks at Spokane issues.

In January 2000, he filed a PDA request with the city for "all memos, e-mails,
notes and correspondence" regarding the $110 million River Park Square downtown
project, built with public and private money.

The city made some documents available right away and told Connor it needed time
to collect additional documents. City officials eventually sent Connor a list of
207 documents they said they would not release because of attorney-client
privilege.

Connor sued, and the city eventually released about 100 of the withheld
documents.

Meanwhile, the city sued the mall developer; and as a result of that suit,
additional documents were released.

Connor contended in his lawsuit that the documents that had initially been
withheld were never privileged, and that he was entitled to attorney fees, costs
and sanctions.

The city responded that Connor was not the cause of the documents being
disclosed and that his claims that the PDA was violated were moot because the
documents had been released.

The trial court ruled that Connor's claims were moot and that the city had acted
reasonably in withholding the documents.

Connor appealed, but the state Court of Appeals affirmed the lower-court finding
on the basis that Connor had not obtained a show-cause order and because the
documents were disclosed as a result of other litigation.

Connor then petitioned the Supreme Court for review, contending the records were
never privileged and should have been disclosed immediately.