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 ·
|
March 26, 2004 Judge's order regarding EFF public records requests "All current and future public disclosure requests and related communications regarding the 7E7 project and Master Agreement from Plaintiff [EFF] and Plaintiff’s representatives must be transmitted through Plaintiff’s counsel to Defendants’ counsel [The Office of the Attorney General] for review for consistency, to provide an opportunity for clarification, to reduce the multiplicity and duplicative requests, and to alleviate the substantial and irreparable damage to vital government functions and impact on limited staff resources for the responding agency. This process applies to Defendants Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, the 7E7 Project Office, and the Office of the Governor. For new public records requests, the Defendants’ time period to respond under RCW 42.17 begins after this review process is completed and on the date that the Defendant agency receives the request." RCW 42.17.251 [1992 c 139 § 2.] Legislative intent NOTES: Intent -- 1987 c 403: "The legislature intends to restore the law
relating to the release of public records largely to that which existed
prior to the Washington Supreme Court decision in "In Re Rosier,"
105 Wn.2d 606 (1986). The intent of this legislation is to make clear that:
(1) Absent statutory provisions to the contrary, agencies possessing records
should in responding to requests for disclosure not make any distinctions
in releasing or not releasing records based upon the identity of the person
or agency which requested the records, and (2) agencies having public records
should rely only upon statutory exemptions or prohibitions for refusal to
provide public records. Further, to avoid unnecessary confusion, "privacy"
as used in RCW 42.17.255 is intended to have the same meaning as the definition
given that word by the Supreme Court in "Hearst v. Hoppe," 90
Wn.2d 123, 135 (1978)." [1987 c 403 § 1.] ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
|
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..." |
