Governor Christine Gregoire issues an executive order on climate change earlier this year. The Evergreen Freedom Foundation wanted to know the "backstory" for the order, and so they filed a public records request for documents related to the order's drafting and implementation.
Pretty straightforward.
Unfortunately -- for at least the second time -- Gregoire's office claimed the documents are protected under "deliberative process" and "executive privilege."
One problem is that "deliberative process" exemption is for protecting the process of forming policy, not after the policy has been formed (such as here, now that the order has been made and released by the Governor). The Court has held that "once the agency implements the policies or recommendations such records are no longer exempt under the deliberative process."
But even worse is that "executive privilege" simply does not exist in Washington public records law. It is a completely made-up notion by our governor, who is taking it upon herself to invent law as she goes along. As the EFF notes, a public records request may only be denied according to a specific statutory exemption, and none exists for "executive privilege."
The EFF has sent a letter asking for reconsideration (corrected link added).
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at August 10, 2009 08:55 AM | Email ThisWe still want to believe we live in a democratic society in Washington state.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but our Fuhreress Governor wears brown shirts.
Just like Stefan got $250,000 vs. King County.
Like Joe D'Amico and Security Services NW is getting from Jefferson County.
Sometimes you just gotta sue the bastards!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on August 10, 2009 10:04 AMHere is one that shows that weather, and not humans are causing Glacier Melt.
Or how about this new paper in Science Mag that shows the Earth's wobble and path around the Sun, which produce more or less elliptical orbits, and not CO2, are the main drivers of climate.
Perhaps this is why 60 Prominent German Scientists, many of them on the UN IPCC board, recently sent an open letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, also implicating natural cycles, and not man as the main driver of climate.
But if all you read is the left leaning MSM, the Al Gore propagandists, the Green products and technology industry, or listen to Air America, etc. you'd never know that there is a huge body of science that directly refutes AGW.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 10, 2009 10:49 AMAnd it could be that their deliberations included disregarding the fact that the science for AGW is weak, and they want to cover it up.
Does she just make this stuff up? It's not like she has no experience with law.
Posted by: USARonin on August 10, 2009 12:12 PMHOWEVER- this will go to court which will probably be here in Thurston. Down here in Thurston County we have judges like Paula Casey and Chris Wickham where actual law doesn't really apply (recall they wanted all Talk radio hours to be registered as campaign contributions- later overturned by 9-0 by the S Supreme court).
So this will eventually have to go to the S. Supreme court, tie up a lot EFF resources and money for quite a while.
The 100/day per record is not enough. It's the cost of doing business for Gregoire.
Posted by: Andy on August 10, 2009 03:15 PMoh wait, wingnuts said it was her right. so, hypocrites? you betcha!
Posted by: mike on August 10, 2009 06:18 PMI know nothing about Alaska public records law, and I cannot, and have not, commented on what she did there.
Please skip the tu quoque fallacies. It's unbecoming to dishonestly say "well someone else did it too!" Even moreso to falsely imply that I have been hypocritical here. You should retract that.
Posted by: pudge on August 10, 2009 06:29 PMThe difference is Washington and Alaska apparently have different open document laws. And that Palin was exonerated from any ethics violation.
But you won't let those little facts get in the way, will you?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 10, 2009 06:35 PMand when wingnuts clamored to palin's defense when she claimed executive privilege, whether it applied or not, and bash gregoire for doing the same, it's the very definition of hypocrisy.
palin wasn't fully exonerated, shanghai. she had to reimburse the state for travel expenses. anyway, we'll see in the coming months if she really resigned due to legal fees (doubt it) or something larger looming (fed indictment?)
pudge, are you saying you are a wingnut, then?
Posted by: mike on August 10, 2009 08:30 PMYou're lying again. Palin was exonerated. She voluntarily paid back travel expenses even though there was no finding or decision telling her to do so. The ethics complaint was found to be baseless and was dismissed (as were the other 14 - not a single one stuck). You are a liar.
As far as executive privilege, there is NOTHING wrong with using it if it exists for the executive. In the case of the State of Washington, it does not; Gregoire is making up a fraudulent "privilege". She's lying. Like you. Birds of a feather, eh?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 10, 2009 08:50 PMwhat about the other 6 ethics complaints (aren't there 20?)
and she only 'voluntarily' paid them back, when an investigator (prompted from an ethics complaint) found she billed the trips to the state. it took her over 4 months to 'voluntarily' reimburse the state. then 'voluntarily' paid back taxes on per diem. did she bypass ethics violations by 'voluntarily' paying back the state what she owed? some model citizen.
Posted by: mike on August 10, 2009 09:00 PMI never said you were. I said you were dishonestly deflecting from Gregoire by pointing at Palin, as if it were relevant.
pudge, are you saying you are a wingnut, then?
I wrote the post, and you responded to it (not to any specific comment). The implication is that you were calling me a wingnut and a hypocrite.
and on some level, especially wrt politics, we're probably all hypocrites.
Posted by: mike on August 10, 2009 09:12 PMNo, you're a liar. You knew better, it was even in the mainstream media. You choose to live in a little world; willful ignorance is no excuse.
There were 16 ethics complaint filed against Palin; every single one was dropped. The particulars of the one you are referencing are such that the law was never defined; when it was brought up as a possible issue (it was undefined), she VOLUNTARILY paid back any per-diems AND the complaint went forward, where she was ultimately exonerated. Meaning she did not have to pay back anyway.
You made the charge being ignorant of the facts; you're either stupid or a liar (or both). Your choice.
And how does that absolve Gregoire of her patently illegal move here? There is no executive privilege in this State, yet she's claiming it. I haven't seen you complain about Gregoire's illegal moves yet. Do they not bother you, because she has (D) after her name?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 10, 2009 10:07 PMYou mean like Norm Dicks waiting until he got caught to repay his lobbyist provided travel?
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20050503&slug=weblobby03
Mike - you are hypocrite and a liar!
the number of ethics complaints is not 16, but 19 w/ 3 pending investigation (which means not every single one was dropped, dan)
i guess that makes me the liar, but you the stupid one.
and i never said it absolved gregoire of anything, i was just pointing out the rabid hypocrisy of wingnuts wrt gregoire's claim. can you not read? oh wait, i forgot - you're le stupid.
Posted by: mike on August 11, 2009 08:53 AMNEWS FLASH FOR MIKE: We live in WASHINGTON STATE, not Alaska, texas or Arizona!
Posted by: pbj on August 11, 2009 09:02 AMThen you condemn Gregoire for this patently illegal claim of hers?
Simple question, Mike - can you answer it?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 11, 2009 12:56 PMjust because you think it is illegal, doesn't make it so. i believe it'd be up to the state supreme court to decide.
Posted by: mike on August 11, 2009 07:03 PMbut seriously, it's not my job to interpret the state constitution. are you saying this isn't something the state supremes should look into? if they find her actions illegal, then i'd condemn. until then, i see no evidence that says it's reprehensible. just partisan rantings from the right.
Posted by: mike on August 11, 2009 09:45 PMThe law is clear. I referenced it for you. I will now quote it: Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of *subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records.
Now, I will point out that subsection (9) (what *was* subsection (6), but neither subsection (6)) does not reference an executive privilege. Neither does the chapter. Neither does any other statute. Of course, I cannot show where it is not mentioned, because it is not mentioned. This is why the governor did not provide a statute for their reason, because it doesn't exist.
Now, it COULD be -- though unlikely -- that one of her other reasons will hold up. However, it is absolutely clear that she is making up a law (executive privilege) that doesn't exist, and for that reason alone she should be condemned by anyone who believes in the rule of law. For you to say this clear and unassailable analysis of the law is "partisan rantings from the right" is extremely dishonest of you.
And yes, actually, it is every citizen's job to interpret the state's constitution.
Then why do you pick on Palin, since the Alaska Supreme Court has yet to find her guilty of wrongdoing? Do you choke much on your own hypocrisy?
To you, it's purely politics; (D) after the name? Nothing bad can be done! (R) after the name? Guilty of whatever is dreamed up...
So, I assume you'll retract your insinuations about Palin, given the same baseline you demand for Gregoire - a determination from a State Supreme Court.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 12, 2009 08:40 AM1)tell obama to his face, that he sucks at life, and state the specific reasons. Especially since he gives me so much ammo to do so.
2)ask the legislative body that can't read the bill, if they want me to hold their hand while they do it?
3)wonder why we even vote such idiots in office, since its almost like a replay of montys holy grail.
P.S my represenative, dave reichert, as im sure you are all aware of, since this is a washington debate, said NO to healthcare plan. he's not even a lawyer!!!!!! his job includes being a sheriff. and he oudoes lawyers? PLEASE!
Posted by: andrew on August 12, 2009 08:58 AM1)tell obama to his face, that he sucks at life, and state the specific reasons. Especially since he gives me so much ammo to do so.
2)ask the legislative body that can't read the bill, if they want me to hold their hand while they do it?
3)wonder why we even vote such idiots in office, since its almost like a replay of montys holy grail.
P.S my represenative, dave reichert, as im sure you are all aware of, since this is a washington debate, said NO to healthcare plan. he's not even a lawyer!!!!!! his job includes being a sheriff. and he oudoes lawyers? PLEASE!
Posted by: andrew on August 12, 2009 09:00 AM