After EFF filed a public records lawsuit against the governor and the Department
of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED), agency staff delivered
250 pages of additional documentation related to the governor's contract
with Boeing. Here is our summary of the key information found in those documents:
1. If statements made by the state's 7E7 Project Coordinator Martha Choe
are correct, the governor and the state are already in violation of several
key provisions of the contract:
The contract required the governor to issue an Executive Order
that details the funding, communications, expectations and management
accountability related to the workforce training provision at the time
the contract took effect on December 19 (Section
7.3). EFF has requested a copy of this Executive Order, but CTED
now claims it does not exist.
The contract required a copy of all authorizing government resolutions
to be compiled and attached (as Exhibit
F) to the contract by January 18 (Section
10.2). This exhibit is blank.
The contract required Opinions of Counsel addressing the legality
of the agreement to be furnished (as Exhibit
G) when the contract was signed on December 19, with any supplemental
opinions attached by December 21. To date, no counsel opinions have been
provided for Puget Sound Energy and Snohomish County Public Utilities District. There is no opinion
that addresses the constitutional issues EFF has identified.
2. The documents confirm that the state is hiring full-time employees to
run interference for Boeing in several key policy areas. This contradicts
Martha Choe's claims that current state employees will simply add the duties
to their current workloads (page
9 of the Legal Questionnaire).
3. The documents provide more information on the Employment Resource Center
that taxpayers will build and operate for Boeingdetails that are redacted
in the contract exhibits to protect "trade secrets." The state-of-the-art
center will be 30,000-40,000 square feet and located within ten minutes
of Boeing's manufacturing site. It will be entirely funded by state and
federal dollars. Boeing will pay no costs. Boeing and its contractors
will have exclusive use of the facility for the first five years, and Boeing
will have priority use thereafter. We believe this facility violates the
state constitution, which prohibits lending of credit and sole benefits
for a corporation.
4. The Port of Everett will "purchase approximately nine (9) acres
of land at the Boeing Everett Facility from the Boeing Company and lease
back to Boeing for a twenty (20) year term." The Port agrees to waive
the leasehold tax of 12.84 percent. In addition, the Port will modify a
runway and waive landing fees for the 7E7 and 747-400 cargo plane (page
30 of Legal Questionnaire).
5. The documents show suggestions from the state on how the Port of Everett
can avoid a public hearing on the property lease agreement (page
30 of Legal Questionnaire).
6. The documents indicate the Port of Everett may have held secret meetings
in violation of the Open Meetings Act. Regarding the establishment of a
purchase price and lease payments for the Boeing property, the documents
state: "Due to the confidentiality requirement, the Port Commission
has not taken formal action to authorize the commitment but there is concurrence
that will form the basis for official action." Section 5.2.2 in the
contract requires that the lease terms and conditions be acceptable to Boeing
(Page
30 of Legal Questionnaire).
7. Responding to Boeing's concerns about the cost of modifying a 747 into
a cargo plane, the state agreed to provide non-cash support by working with
state universities to recruit drafting and engineering students to assist
Boeing in the design and modification work. The modified cargo planes will
be used to import large component parts for the 7E7. Students will receive
academic credit for their work. The governor
amended the contract February 2 after Boeing forfeited the state's offer
of funding for the project, but we do not know if the amendment removes
student involvement. Martha Choe has stated this provision is removed, but
we have not seen details to confirm it.
8. The state will form a private, non-profit Aerospace Futures Board, supported
by an executive director and staff. The Board will design and implement
a plan for 7E7 production and workforce development, and will direct all
state resources committed for employee training. Boeing will approve all
organization documents, including its bylaws, and will designate all Board
members, including public parties.
According to the documents, "the state is committed to partner with
Boeing to develop the board structure and fund the board including operations
and an Executive Director position." The state will spend $300,000
from the Workforce Investment Act fund through June 30, 2006. Future costs
are not identified (page
19 of Legal Questionnaire). EFF questions the legality of the
state funding a private, non-profit board of aerospace employers which is
controlled by Boeingespecially since the board will direct the state
on how much funding to provide.
9. As mentioned, the governor
amended his contract February 2 to eliminate state funding for a large
cargo freighter coordinator, a requirement that the state assist in obtaining
funds for three cargo planes, and a $5 million state appropriation to assist
in modifying a 747. However, the amendment includes a new provision to waive
all landing fees in Snohomish County (Paine Field) for 747-400 cargo planes.
EFF questions the governor's authority to bind future Snohomish County
Commissioners.
Further, the governor ordered the state and CTED to ensure that the "747-400
Large Cargo Freighter is eligible for all benefits afforded the 7E7 program
and shall facilitate a low cost operating environment for the aircraft through
state tax abatements and other avenues available through the appropriate
state and local governments." EFF questions the governor's authority
to amend HB 2294 (the $3.2 billion aerospace tax incentives passed last
year) without legislative approval.
Prepared by Bob Williams | President
Contact: Jason
Mercier | Budget Researsh Analyst | 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]?"