Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
2
3
X
X
X
Expedite
Hearing set October 31, 2013
Judge Shaller
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE
OF WASHINGTON FOR THURSTON COUNTY
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
)
ARTHUR WEST,
plaintiff,
Vs.
)
)
No. 13-2-01603-3
)
)
)
PLAINTIFFS
REPLY TO 2nd
WASHINTON STATE,
)
MOTION FOR
LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, )
SUMMARY
et al,
)
JUDGMENT
defendants
)
______________________________ )________________________________
Comes now the plaintiff, Arthur West, and respectfully responds to the 2 nd identical
Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the State.
11
12
13
14
15
I INTRODUCTION
This case presents issues under the Open Public Meetings Act. Despite the
circumstance that all of the issues now being argued by defendants are res judicata due to
the previous determination of the Court, defendants have filed a second motion making
exactly the same arguments that have previously been rejected, a violation of CR 11.
Plaintiff hereby denies all of the various allegations made by counsel and their
clients to deny violations of the OPMA, and incorporates all of the arguments and
16
17
exhibits previously submitted in response to the first motion making the same claims, and
in Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.
In addition, plaintiff seeks a continuance under CR 56(f) due to the extremely
18
19
20
ARTHUR WEST
120 State Ave NE #1497
Olympia, WA 98501
suppression and spoliation of material evidence. Less than a week prior to this filing
deadline, plaintiff has received voluminous records, some of which appear to have been
2
3
improperly and silently withheld from inspection under the PRA, and which materially
contradict the arguments made by counsel in this case. Under these circumstances a brief
continuance is necessary for the plaintiff to review the responses to discovery. Plaintiff
4
5
has had to file documents in 2 federal cases this week and has a response due today in the
SPU video appeal in Division I that requires review of materials produced by over 10
attorneys. Under these circumstances a 2 day extension of time is reasonable.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 PLAINTIFFS
REPLY OF
OCTOBER 20
ARTHUR WEST
120 State Ave NE #1497
Olympia, WA 98501
1
2
3
4
5
6
that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly." RCW
42.30.010; see Equitable Shipyards, Inc. v. State, 93 Wn.2d 465, 482, 611 P.2d 396
(1980) (the statement of purpose in the OPMA "employs some of the strongest language
7
8
used in any legislation"). The purpose of the OPMA is to permit the public to observe all
steps in the making of governmental decisions. Cathcart v. Andersen, 85 Wn.2d 102, 530
P.2d 313 (1975). We must give the OPMA a liberal construction to further its policies and
9
10
11
12
not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know
and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so
that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
ARTHUR WEST
120 State Ave NE #1497
Olympia, WA 98501
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
On March 22, 2013, LCB Executive director Rick Garza testified before the House
finance Committee
15
16
17
18
19
20
...(in) the public forums the board spent four hours, usually in the
evening, taking testimony but I think a lot of the work that was done
during the morning and afternoon in meeting with the prevention
community, with city officials and county officials separately and then
with law enforcement and I think that it was in those meetings that we
learned a lot about some of the issues and challenges that we have at the
Liquor Control Board. And I think the first one we would move to is
medical marijuana...
4 PLAINTIFFS
REPLY OF
OCTOBER 20
ARTHUR WEST
120 State Ave NE #1497
Olympia, WA 98501
2
3
undermined the legitimacy of the I-502 Rules, since the principle that the actions of
entities like the LCB that are taken in violation of the OPMA or tainted by secret
proceedings may properly be voided is also clearly established.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
The Act provides that any action taken at meeting failing to comply with the open
meeting requirements will be null and void. RCW 42.30.060(1). OPAL v. Adams County,
128 Wn.2d 869, 913 P.2d 793, (1996). In this case, the actions of the LCB were
deliberately designed to evade the OPMA, a circumstance that mterially undercuts the
evidentiary foundation for the groups actions, as described in Clark.
Here, whereas the majority of the Task Force's meetings leading up
the Ordinance's passage were conducted behind closed doors, the
City Council's actual passage of the Ordinance occurred at a public
meeting on May 18, 1998. Therefore, the Ordinance is not null and
void under the OPMA. Id. We conclude, however, that any actions
taken at the Task Force's meetings that were closed to the public are
null and void, thereby potentially undercutting the evidentiary
foundation for the Ordinance, as we discuss in the next section
below. Id. at 883, 913 P.2d 793. Clark, supra, Citing OPAL,
(emphasis added)
The actions of the LCB in having many more secret meetings than public forums
and doing a lot of the work in the secret sessions demonstrate the public forums and
were merely a pretext for the real work, work that was knowingly and illegally performed
behind a specious veil of secrecy in violation of the OPMA.
V THE WITHHOLDING OF MATERIAL EVIDENCE UNDER CLAIM OF
PRIVILEGE IS IMPROPER AND IN ANY EVENT REQUIRES THAT THE
DEFENDANTS' MOTION BE DENIED
The defendants' refusal to produce the very evidence relied upon by the court
in Cathcart v. Anderson to exonerate the dean and faculty in that case from claims
5 PLAINTIFFS
REPLY OF
OCTOBER 20
ARTHUR WEST
120 State Ave NE #1497
Olympia, WA 98501
1
2
of knowing violation is improper under the precedent of Dike, Maxon and Dietz, and
further raises a presumption and inference fatal to the defendant's motion for
summary judgment.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Further, as the Supreme Court noted in Pier 67 v. King County, 89 Wn.2d 379,
(1977)...
16
17
18
19
20
ARTHUR WEST
120 State Ave NE #1497
Olympia, WA 98501
1
2
3
The evidence of what counsel advised the LCB Board members on compliance
with the OPMA is material to this case, and its withholding requires an inference be
6
7
8
9
VI CONCLUSION
The actions of the LCB were deliberately taken to deliberate and make
10
crucial policy decisions behind closed doors with law enforcement, local government
11
and federal officials. In this context, the evening public forums appear to have been
12
staged as cover for the secret daytime meetings where, as Rick Garza so publicly
testified.. a lot of the work...was done.
13
14
Plaintiff West is not clairvoyant or a gypsy mind reader with occult powers to testify as to
what the LCB Board members knew, and it is unreasonable to expect such unattainable
evidence. The record in this case and the exhibits attached to the appended declaration, as well as
15
16
17
those previously submitted demonstrate that the Board members had knowledge of the
requirements of the OPMA, and yet attended private meetings with law enforcement, local
government, and the prevention community where a lot of the work on the I-502 rules was
done Since no reliable record exists of the actual content if these secret meetings the LCB's
action is un-reviewable under the APA as there can be no valid administrative record of a rule
18
19
20
making process substantially based upon over a dozen secret meetings that were not recorded
7 PLAINTIFFS
REPLY OF
OCTOBER 20
ARTHUR WEST
120 State Ave NE #1497
Olympia, WA 98501
1
2
The Board should be found to have been in knowing violation of the OPMA and the rules
should be similarly invalidated under the authority of Clark v. City of Lakewood.
Done October 20, 2013, in Olympia.
3
4
ARTHUR WEST
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
8 PLAINTIFFS
REPLY OF
OCTOBER 20
ARTHUR WEST
120 State Ave NE #1497
Olympia, WA 98501