OLYMPIALast month, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation
(EFF) submitted a new records
request concerning the state's Boeing contract. EFF followed the state's
discriminatory records request procedure (which applies only to EFF)
by first sending the request to the Attorney General's (AG) office for approval,
and then on to the 7E7 Project Office on May 14, 2004. The 7E7 Project Office
acknowledged receipt of EFF's request on May 17, 2004, stating, "We
estimate that we should be able to respond to your request on or before
June 17, 2004."
Yesterday however, EFF received a fax from Robin Pollard (7E7 Project Coordinator)
stating, "Pursuant to Martha Choe's letter of May 17, 2004, my office
will require additional time to respond to your public disclosure request.
We will now release our response to you on July 2, 2004."
If the 7E7 project office did not have these requested documents, EFF requested
that they provide the waiver from Boeing excusing the state from these contractual
requirements (Section 12.23).
"The state is continuing its troubling pattern of delaying access
to information," said Jason Mercier, EFF's budget research analyst.
"This problem is just another symptom of the state's overall disregard
for the public's right to know."
It's not just EFF. Dr.
David Pritchard of the University of Buffalo's Canada-U.S. Trade Center
has been trying for more than a month to receive a response from the state's
7E7 Project Office. "We've been trying to receive clarification from
Washington state officials regarding the 7E7 subsidy issue in light of our
research indicating WTO
violations," said Dr. Pritchard. "Unfortunately, over the
course of the past month, Washington's 7E7 office has not found it necessary
to respond to our e-mails or phone calls."
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]?"