If a Tree Falls In a Wood, And the Committee Can't Remember It ...

In several previous posts, the Trojan Heron has covered CAPR's lawsuit about the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). This lawsuit has to do with the alleged secret meetings of the former CAO Implementation Committee, which was comprised of County staff (including a Deputy Prosecutor) and three former Council people. The committee was formed to help shuffle the CAOs along, which are the subject of a separate lawsuit involving the County, the Friends, and the Common Sense Alliance.

Regarding the OPMA and the CAPR lawsuit ... the closed meetings of the CAO Implementation Committee took place regularly for months. CAPR's position is that these meetings should have been open to the public, according to the OPMA, because the committee took action on behalf of the Council in reviewing and discarding CAO options ... and because the committee involved a negative quorum of Council members (three members being sufficient to vote down a proposal).

The County alleges that no actions were taken in these meetings ... nothing happened. There were hundreds of hours of meetings, and nothing substantive occurred. They invited in consultants and staff, but only discussed ministerial functions such as scheduling. There are no meeting minutes, only some hand scribbled notes in addition to emails between staff and committee members. When deposed about the content of the meetings, participants could not recall what they discussed. 

• Lovel Pratt was deposed on January 3, 2013, and she expressed 67 denials of knowledge (63 "I don't recall", 4 "I don't know")
• Richard Fralick was deposed on January 3, 2013, and he expressed 22 denials (21 "I don't recall", 1 "I don't know")
• Patty Miller was deposed on January 4, 2013, and she expressed 63 denials (51 "I don't recall", 12 "I don't know")
• Shireene Hale was deposed on January 17, 2013, and she expressed 100 denials (52 "I don't recall", 31 "I don't know", 17 "I just don't have a specific recollection")

Despite all this "nothing" going on, in a January 2013 Council meeting, the Council spent time in one of their non-secret meetings congratulating themselves on the work they got done in committees and subcommittees. Councilman Stephens even referred to the CAOs directly. Pratt said that she could hardly remember any Council votes where subcommittees didn't get their way.

Yesterday, this case finally reached the Washington Supreme Court. Oral arguments were heard. A ruling is still several weeks away. The justices were very engaged and asked good questions yesterday. Several seemed skeptical that the County could spend so much time in secret doing nothing.

They aren't the only ones.

Doing Things In Secret Sure Is Productive

Most of you probably know that the County is being sued by the Citizens Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR) over violations of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), specifically as it relates to the Critical Areas Ordinances (CAOs). At issue is whether three Council members are permitted to meet in private. At first, the Council was advised by our Prosecuting Attorney (PA) that it was okay for three Councillors to meet because it did not represent a quorum (it takes 4 votes to pass legislation in our system). But after the issue was pressed by the Charter Review Commission (CRC), the PA reversed his decision, explaining that a quorum can be construed as either the number of Council members needed to take positive (4 Councillors) or negative (3 Councillors) action.

In the depositions related to the lawsuit regarding the OPMA, many of the participants in the CAO Committee meetings have a poor recollection of what happened during their illegal secret get-togethers (see previous posting). However, in January 2012 the same people spent a considerable period of time in one of the non-secret Council meetings talking about all the great stuff they got done in secret. Stephens even refers to the CAOs directly. Pratt says that she can hardly remember any Council votes where subcommittees didn't get their way.

How can Pratt remember that detail but not details related to her deposition (67 denials)?

The video strongly suggests that the OPMA was violated, not just for the CAOs, but for nearly everything the previous Council did.

Watch the first half hour to 40 minutes of the linked video. It is full of "Holy Crap!" moments.

Pratt Notes Involved In Deposition

Commenters have asked to see the notes related to Lovel Pratt's deposition in the secret-meeting CAO-Committee OPMA lawsuit. They are provided as images below (click any of the images below to enlarge). They'll be the subject of a future post, but for now, have a look and judge for yourself if Pratt and the rest of the Committee discussed only non-substantive scheduling matters.

Oh, and by the way, the BLM lands are now a National Monument too (another link here).
_______________________________________________________________

I Don't Recall

The San Juan County Chapter of the Citizens Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR) just issued a press release (see below) containing information about the depositions in their lawsuit regarding Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA) violations. We'll be delving into this more in coming days since some of the information is in the public record now.

Pratt cites her experience as one of the key reasons to support her election. Her website says:

San Juan County needs leaders with experience, good judgment and expertise; leaders who are dedicated, accessible, and responsive; leaders who will make decisions in the best interests of our entire community.

This is what Lovel Pratt will bring to the new County Council.

But the OPMA lawsuit suggests she can't remember key portions of her experience. She doesn't seem all that responsive either. Was she making decisions in the best interest of our entire community? Irrespective of her campaign statements, she probably can't recall.

Have a look at the press release, which is presented in its entirety.
______________________________________________________________

County Council Rejects Settlement Offer

Citizens Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR), recently submitted an offer to settle the lawsuit with San Juan County alleging violations of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). The County Council rejected the offer.

The CAPR case is about open and transparent government. This is a priority to more than 85% of the people who voted in the November election. Our Prosecutor states, “The policy reasons for open government are very strong.”  CAPR agrees wholeheartedly with Mr. Gaylord here.

However, the actions of San Juan County in this matter seem to be contrary to the words of the Prosecutor and the policies of the Council. Section 2.4 of the Council Rules of Procedure requires that, “all meetings of the Council shall be open to the public.” This rule was not followed in this case where secret meetings of 3 council persons and staff occurred more than 20 times before coming to light and being stopped.

In fact, the County has taken steps to further conceal and block attempts to gather information. This is not a commitment to open government. On 2/20/13 the County filed a protective order in an attempt to block the deposition of Deputy Prosecutor Jon Cain. The County has further attempted to limit our discovery. In depositions of Council and staff members the terms “I don’t recall,” “I don’t remember,” “I don’t know,” were used more than 250 times. What is the County trying to hide?

In the deposition of former subcommittee member Lovel Pratt, which lasted less than 4 hours, she stated that she didn’t know or couldn’t recall answers to simple questions more than 74 times. When presented with her own notes taken at the meetings she did not recall what the notes referred to:

“Q. Do you recall in the February 3rd, 2012, meeting anyone from staff asking what were the views of the Council members as to wetland buffers, stormwater, site specific and variable buffers and/or medium risk approaches? Do you recall staff requesting any guidance from the County Council members in attendance on any of those topics?

Pratt. I don't recall.

Q. So you don't -- why were they discussed?  Do you have any idea?

Pratt. I don't recall.

Q. Ma'am, this meeting is only less than a year old, and you just don't recall?

Pratt. I just -- I don't recall the specifics of this particular meeting.  I'm sorry.

Q. There's no need to apologize.  You just don't recall?

Pratt. I don't.

Q. And these notes don't refresh your memory?

Pratt. Sorry.”

If you believe that open and transparent government should be a priority of San Juan County and if you believe that all meetings of the Council should be open and transparent, then we need your support. Send any donations to CAPR San Juan P.O. Box 1866 Friday Harbor WA 98250.