Bob
Williams | President | Evergreen Freedom Foundation
Boeing officials are trying to intervene in the public records lawsuit EFF
filed to obtain undisclosed details of the governors recent deal with
the company. In a motion filed February 20, Boeing argues that disclosing
details about an employee training center for which taxpayers are being
asked to spend a minimum of $10 million over an unspecified period of time
would not be in the public interest and would substantially
and irreparably harm the company.
It is not our goal to expose legitimately protected trade secrets. But
the information we have obtained about the multi-million dollar taxpayer-funded
training center so far does not indicate trade secrets. Instead, it seems
Boeing officials and the governor want taxpayers to sign a blank check.
They want legislators to agree, without all the necessary information to
determine whether it is a good decision or not, to pay for all costs,
fees and expenses . . . arising out of operation, maintenance, repair and
replacement of what will be a 30,000 - 40,000 square foot facility,
which the state will buy or build.
Further, the governor and other state officials have stated the training
center will not be used for the exclusive benefit of Boeing. As Assistant
Attorney General David Walsh was quoted
in the Seattle Times this morning, the $10 million is not
for Boeing, but for education of the people, and of course the state may
do that.
If this building is not for Boeing, why does Boeing have trade secrets
wrapped up in it?
Thats why weve asked a judge to review the documents and determine
whether or not there are legitimate trade secrets that need to be protected.
If the judge discovers there are, we have no desire to see those details
released, but it also means Boeing, not taxpayers, should be funding the
project. If there are no trade secrets, taxpayers have a right to know what
theyre being asked to buy. And if Boeing officials are not willing
to share those details, they should, again, fund the project themselves.
Our state constitution was written specifically to protect taxpayers from
being forced to grant preferential subsidies to one corporation at the expense
of others. Do legislators really want to throw that out the window?
Contact: Marsha
Richards | Communications Director | 360.956.3482
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"