Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The House Always Wins | Transgression »

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Port Recall: Devil’s in the Details

posted by on May 24 at 13:10 PM

Good Government activist Chris Clifford is going back to KC Superior Court today to defend the language of his Pat Davis recall proposal.

Shall Pat Davis, Port of Seattle Commissioner, be recalled from public office because, as alleged by King County registered voter, Christopher Clifford:
1. Commissioner Davis committed an act of malfeasance when she signed an agreement to provide Mic Dinsmore, an outgoing Port of Seattle employee, with a gift of approximately $239,000 of public money outside of his employment contract.
2. Commissioner Davis committed an act of malfeasance by signing an October 10, 2006 memorandum addressed to the former chief executive officer of the Port, which had the potential effect of obligating the Port of Seattle to pay monies not voted on or approved by Port of Seattle Commissioners at a regularly scheduled public hearing.
3. Commissioner Davis committed acts of malfeasance by voting in executive session on or about January 10, 2006 and June 8, 2006, in violation of the Washington State Open Public Meetings Act (Ch. 42.30 RCW).
4. Commissioner Davis committed an act of malfeasance by knowingly exceeding the purposes for executive session in the Washington State Open Public Meetings Act (Ch. 42.30 RCW) by negotiating and voting on a gift of public money in executive session.

Davis’s attorneys have suggested alternative, including striking the word “knowingly” in the 4th point.

RSS icon Comments

1

Isn't it just as much a crime to do it either way?

Posted by Will in Seattle | May 24, 2007 1:55 PM
2

Seems odd that Josh has made this his latest obsession.

What does the port have to do with night clubs or the Monorail?

Did Lisa H take the week off?

Posted by Just asking | May 24, 2007 2:11 PM
3

If you get rid of the Port, there's much more room for waterfront condos along a viaductless waterfront.

Which we should support, because it encourages density, and will lead people to abandon their cars.

:)

Posted by NapoleonXIV | May 24, 2007 2:39 PM
4

@1: no. RCW 42.30.120 requires knowledge of the fact that meeting violates OPMA. it's a technical defect the judge had to fix. and it's not a crime. id. ("a violation of [the OPMA] does not constitute a crime"). it's a nominal civil penalty of $100. the teeth in this is the recall.

Posted by robespierre & maurice | May 24, 2007 5:39 PM
5

Not to say that Davis is not at fault - but what about the other guys - don't you think the spinning is amazing? Why do they always meet out of public view in exec sessions? Isn't that against open meeting law act?

Posted by Sasha | May 24, 2007 11:36 PM
6

decay tooth http://www.url.chefhost.com/87c7ae >decay tooth

Posted by decay tooth | May 29, 2007 12:51 PM
7

decay tooth http://www.url.chefhost.com/87c7ae >decay tooth

Posted by decay tooth | May 29, 2007 12:51 PM
8

slupqb lbjfp ziluj hxjykn havck ejkvyz kqzblrh

Posted by ajrvwdt fypmav | June 3, 2007 5:58 AM
9

ykadj itsdy lmygdru pwvmo ubazjrcdg axmd esugrnk [URL]http://www.tbsdjyahc.ulvn.com[/URL] yvzd xebq

Posted by glwa rqdva | June 3, 2007 6:01 AM
10

ykadj itsdy lmygdru pwvmo ubazjrcdg axmd esugrnk [URL]http://www.tbsdjyahc.ulvn.com[/URL] yvzd xebq

Posted by glwa rqdva | June 3, 2007 6:02 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).