EFF's Election Report ·
Gonzales Letter ·
Welfare Reform ·
Boeing Contract ·
Budget & Taxes ·
Business Climate ·
K-12 Fact Sheet ·
EFF Health Study ·
Paycheck Protection ·
Transportation ·
Unemployment Ins. ·
Receive Updates ·
Bookmark EFF ·
Contribute ·
EFF in the News ·
How Can I Help? ·
Join EFF ·
Media Center ·
|
PRESS RELEASE February 6, 2004 EFF files lawsuit to obtain Boeing contract details OLYMPIA, WA—The Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF) filed a public records lawsuit today against Washington's Community Trade and Economic Development department (CTED) to force the disclosure of all the relevant details of the Governor's agreement with Boeing. Repeated attempts to get the critical contract information Governor Locke said was available have been met with resistance and refusal from CTED. "It has been 49 days since the Governor signed the Boeing deal, yet his office still withholds information the legislature must consider before making the decision to accept or reject the contract's financial terms," said Bob Williams, president of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. "Despite the Governor's claims that nothing has been kept secret, we are being forced into legal action to make these documents public." On January 21, 2004, EFF held a press conference disclosing what was then available regarding the state's agreement with Boeing. It was at this press conference that the Chair of the state's House Appropriations Committee received her first copy of the contract, a full month after the agreement was signed. The documents that CTED still has not disclosed are: 1. A copy of the "Governor's Executive Order or clear directive," which is required by Section 7.3 of the contract. This executive order/directive details the duties of the Workforce Development Coordinator (WDC) and the responsibilities of state agencies in assisting the WDC. This was required by the contract to be issued "concurrently with the execution" of the Agreement. 2. Exhibit F: Copies of whatever authorizing (statutory) actions are required to satisfy the commitments to the contract. The document sent was blank—not redacted. 3. Exhibit G: Copies of the opinions of counsel related to whether or not the elements of the contract are legal. The document sent was blank, not redacted. 4. A copy of Schedule 1: Site application questionnaire for Project Olympus.
The document sent was blank, not redacted. 6. A copy of Schedule 3: Restatement of commitments dated November 10, 2003. The document sent was blank, not redacted. Additional Information Contact: Jason Mercier | Budget Research Analyst | 360.956.3482
|
1 Part Honesty; 2 Parts Arrogance 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]?" - Rep. Jim McIntire (D - 46) Despite the arrogance of some state officials, Washington's constitution is clear: "All political power is inherent in the people..." |
