Wow! Stuart gets the lawyer that works for him to say that when they broke the law, they didn't break the law!

.
Yeah. And if the glove don't fit, you must acquit.

Since just about anyone who supports the unnecessary, unneeded, horrifically wasteful bridge replacement/loot rail program that causes orgasms of delight down at the democratian, it's not surprising that the rag would engage in yet more damage control for the two commissioners who, even according to the rag, violated the law.

So, this is what we have:

Stuart and Boldt attended a meeting at Ridgefield Barbie's Vancouver office.

The purpose was for local officials to meet with Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chairman of the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and committee member Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa.

The private meeting lasted 45 minutes.

And what took place there?

Stuart and Boldt engaged in:

"deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations"

And why is that critical?

Because the law, RCW 42.30.120 uses definitions that say this:

The definition of the word “action,” as taken from the RCW, Definitions, http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.30.020

(3) "Action" means the transaction of the official business of a public agency by a governing body including but not limited to receipt of public testimony, deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations, and final actions. "Final action" means a
collective positive or negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a governing body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance.

Arguably, that the commissioner's lawyer, who works for the commissioners, claims otherwise?

What do you expect?

I disagree with the contention that "action" is a trigger of some sort... using the excuse put up by Potter

“The fact that a quorum of the Board is present at the same time and place does not automatically mean that a ‘meeting’ has occurred for the purposes of the OPMA because an ‘action’ must occur to trigger the OPMA,” Potter wrote in a two-page letter to Stuart.

The definition for "action" seems to indicate that any or all of the elements in the definition when a quorum is present anywhere equates to "action," and in this case, 5 seperate elements were present.

From a November, 2010 opinion by our state attorney general:

Although your request frames the question based on whether or not the council members “participate” in the standing committee’s meeting, the relevant inquiry is whether the council members take action while attending the meeting. RCW 42.30.020(4) (defining a meeting as a meeting at which action is taken). We concluded in 2006 that a quorum of city or county council members could attend a public meeting called by a third party without violating the Act, as long as the council members did not take action. AGO 2006 No. 6. [4] We emphasized that whether
members take action depends on whether the particular circumstances fall within
the “transaction of the official business” of the governing body.” AGO 2006 No. 6, at 2. For example, council members are taking action where they deliberate or discuss a decision they might eventually make. AGO 2006 No. 6, at 2 (citing In re Recall of Beasley, 128 Wn.2d 419, 908 P.2d 878 (1996)).

This blows Potter's letter out of the water and shows that like Rice, he's completely confused motion with "Action."

If Potter was correct, there is no end to the skulldugery commissioners could engage in during private meetings under the cloak provided by the meeting at issue here. But he is not correct.

There are arguably future decisions that the commissioners may make concerning the horrific project. That is undeniable.

Likewise, that the commissioners "discussed" this in a private meeting with a quorum present is also undeniable.

And so is the fact that this discussion violated the law, Potter notwithstanding.

So, we're left with the question: Did Stuart and Boldt break the law; was it the usual democratian incompetence to claim they had violated the law, or was all of this just good clean fun, where, in fact, "deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations" did NOT take place?

Bull. The commissioners who were there broke the law. They know it, the democratian knows it and *I* know. Because that's why law school graduate Steve Stuart is tap-dancing... and why the paper is engaging in this kind of pro-bridge/loot rail damage control.
.