OLYMPIAOn May 13, 2004,
the Evergreen Freedom Foundation submitted a records request to the state's
7E7 Project Office asking in part for a copy of the state's Boeing 7E7 Economic
Impact Study and the contract with the consultant who produced the report.
The state's agreement with Boeing clearly stated that the contract with
the "qualified, reputable, experienced, independent nationally recognized
consulting firm" was to be issued within 60 days of December 19, 2003
and the report was to show the "impacts and benefits of [the 7E7 project]
for the state, its citizens and taxpayers." It was to be available
within 150 days of December 19, 2003. This study was to be completed "at
no cost, expense or charge to Boeing."
In response to EFF's request, Washington's 7E7 Project Office initially said
that the records would be available "on or before June 17, 2004."
However, on June 17, 2004, EFF received a fax
from Robin Pollard (7E7 Project Coordinator) informing us they would not
have their response to us until July 2, 2004.
Now comes word that Washington's 7E7 Project Office plans to hold a press
conference for "stakeholders" tomorrow, at 11a.m., at the Seattle
Chamber of Commerce where they will release the delayed study.
"Since attendance at the conference is apparently by invitation only,
just who is a stakeholder of the state's agreement with Boeing is up for
debate," said Jason Mercier, EFF budget analyst.
"You can imagine our surprise to learn that instead of providing us
with the requested documents last week, the state is holding a press conference
tomorrow to manage the release of the study to the press," said Mercier.
"If the state had its way, we'd read about the records in the paper
instead of being provided them as the law stipulates."
"In light of this behavior, it comes as no surprise that the independent'
consultant the state contracted with for this taxpayer financed study to
show the benefits' of Locke's Boeing deal appears to be none other
than Boeing's own consultant, Deloitte," said Mercier.
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]?"