Judge says redacted Boeing documents
contain trade secrets
OLYMPIA Thurston County Superior Court Judge Christine
Pomeroy today ruled that nine pages of information related to the governor's
deal with Boeing contain trade
secrets. The Evergreen Freedom Foundation requested the review in a
public records lawsuit against the state.
EFF has been pursuing documents related to the Boeing deal since it was
signed in mid-December. The state initially turned over 85 pages, and has
since been forced to release nearly 900 pages.
Boeing officials and the state had claimed 40 pages of information contained
trade secrets, but eventually released 31 of those pages, some just three
days before a court hearing. There were no trade secrets in those documents,
but many of them had information about a taxpayer-funded
employee training center for which legislators must vote to appropriate
funds.
"Getting the information has been like pulling teeth," said Bob
Williams, EFF's president. "The governor has abused his authority in
the provisions of this contract, and he's been trying to hide the details
from legislators and taxpayers. It's bad news when the Executive Branch
tries to circumvent the Legislative Branch of our state government."
The attorney general's office argued that legislators were given all the
information related to the Boeing deal in January when "three legislative
staff members of the House Appropriations and Senate Ways and Means Committees
were provided the opportunity [to] view an unredacted version of [the contract
and exhibits] . . ." However, these staffers were required to sign
confidentiality agreements prohibiting them from disclosing the information
to anyone, including legislators.
"Showing it to three legislative staffers who can't discuss it with
their bosses is hardly what we'd call being open," said Williams. "EFF
has been forced to spend a lot of time and effort to get information that
should have been readily available to the public. That's not acceptable."
"We now know the governor's deal with Boeing isn't all it's cracked
up to be. Legislators will have to make a decision on whether to appropriate
hard-earned taxpayer dollars for some of these provisions, and we hope the
information we've been able to expose will be part of their deliberations."
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]?"