VS 
The Port of CW’s attorney Shawn McPherson is attempting to sue the State Auditor
over public records requests by the Concerned Citizens in Action (CCIA) which supposedly amounts to hundreds of pages of documentation regarding the RiverWalk issue.
McPherson contends the information is “attorney client work” and should not be available for public inspection.
Who is McPherson’s client? You! The public. Yet he is filing an injunction to stop you, the public from viewing public documents.
This guy has got to go. With Riverwalk concluded, he is STILL costing the taxpayers money. So much for a transparent Port.
Sept. 2 -Primary Election is Certified
29 Comments
July 11, 2009 at 12:29 am
The Clark County Superior Court ruled today in favor of the Port of Camas Washougal to withhold 13 pages of documents that the State Auditor felt CCIA should have received. Shawn McPherson argued that these documents were privileged and represented “attorney client” information. However, the State Auditor has released approximately 800 pages of documents to CCIA pertaining to Riverwalk. Martha Martin and Susan Stauffer are reviewing the 800 pages to try and understand how decisions related to Riverwalk were made and by whom.
July 11, 2009 at 1:01 am
So much for the Port’s recent promise of transparency. Amazing.
July 11, 2009 at 1:36 am
I need to correct Roger on one item. The Auditor’s position was that these documents were given to them by the Port, and any assertion of exemption had to be made by the Port. My impression was that the privileged documents should not have been released to the Auditor’s possession in the first place. As a matter of law, I have no reason to believe that the judges ruling was incorrect.
July 11, 2009 at 8:43 am
What does Bill Ward have to say? Wasn’t he hand picked by the CCIA to bring the elusive transparency?
July 11, 2009 at 11:05 am
Two out of three votes still wins the day, Skeptic. If Bill gets outvoted in Executive Session, he isn’t free to discuss it. It’s like having your hands tied while under a gag order. Just remember this: If the majority of the Commissioners wanted the truth to come out, those documents would never have been kept from public view.
July 11, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Does the public have access to how they vote? Can Ward make a public comment? Until I hear otherwise, he is as much of a crook as the rest.
July 11, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Skeptic, I think of you as a pretty sharp individual but your last comment is way off base. You need to call Bill Ward and talk to him personally and then you’ll know the truth. His phone number is 834-3004. Bill is only one vote in a three commissioner board. In no way shape or form is Bill a crook! And, I have found no information to suggest that Alan Hargrave or Jim Carroll are crooks. But, both Alan and Jim got swept up in Mark Benson’s eloquent spin and made very poor decisions that cost you and me (the tax payers) thousands of dollars.
July 13, 2009 at 8:02 am
One correction … there can be no votes or decisions made in Executive Sessions … even a straw vote or an informal poll.
July 13, 2009 at 10:04 am
Jeff Guard – You are correct as far as City, County, State, and Federal Govt, but what about Municipalities? The Port is a Municipal government, and it operates under different statutes. It is possible that everything (other than the actual vote) was conducted in Exec Session, which would not violate Exec Session privileges. I did pull this quote from a VBJ article (March 16th, 2007), just as a reference:
“Ports commonly conduct land-use negotiations in executive session, said Charla Skaggs, a spokeswoman for the Washington Public Ports Assoc.”
July 13, 2009 at 10:04 pm
The Open Meetings Act that allows for Executive Sessions, is a law provided for under Washington State Law and affects all governmental entities in the State.
Land / Property acquisitions and negoitiations for the same have always been allowed under the executive session rule.
July 11, 2009 at 10:24 am
Sheldon Tyler’s letter to the editor makes several alarming claims. He said that he told Shawn McPherson before he (Tyler) went on vacation to tell the commissioners that he recommended that they take more time to review the lease, to engage the public and to have outside counsel review it before they acted on it. Did McPherson take Tyler’s advice and pass on his recommendations to the commissioners? McPherson needs to answer these questions. If he won’t tell us, then he needs to go. I seriously doubt if Hugh Knapp or Robert Lewis would have recommended to the commissioners that they approve the lease option with Riverwalk. I think both Hugh and Robert would not have permitted Benson and Bowler to attend executive session meetings to present their plan. When McPherson did not seek outside counsel to review the Riverwalk lease option before the commissioners signed it, the poorly written document left the door wide open for arbitration. McPherson shares fault for this mess, yet he has made thousands of dollars defending action that should have never taken place. Yep, McPherson needs to go.
July 11, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Roger – forgive me, but I thought I read were Steve said they were “lining their pockets” . Until I hear some facts otherwise Bill is just as bad as the rest of them. Why can’t he make a statement?
July 11, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Skeptic, it’s been awhile, but I believe I said something to the effect that anyone in favor of the Riverwalk option agreement was either lining their pockets with it or hadn’t read it. I still stand by that.
Now, since you brought it up, please take the time to read that statement carefully. First of all, I’m referring to anyone: You, me, the Commissioners and their friends, developers and their friends, bankers, attorneys, ANYONE.
Secondly, I refer specifically to the option agreement. I’m not talking about the CONCEPT of riverfront development (which I actually endorse); I’m talking about the lousy piece of paper that the Commissioners and those altruistic developers signed.
Which brings me to number three: How many people have actually read it? Now, I know it’s filled with a bunch of “whereas” and all that legal jargon that makes these things intimidating. However, if anyone takes the time to actually read it and realize what it says, it’ll make your hair stand on end. Ever since I read it, I’ve felt it would make a great study project for a high school class. My guess is that any kid that’s passed freshmen English would consider it horribly vague and much too risky to sign. Accordingly, I think that anyone who’s a fan of that particular contract is either selfish or foolish.
So, Skeptic, please remember this: Bill Ward was an opponent of the contract (and the shady way that it came to be) from the start. He made that very clear during his election campaign. The litigation of that contract is still pending, and the feuding parties are under a gag order. He can’t comment, even if he wants to.
July 12, 2009 at 10:30 am
Skeptic, why can’t you call Bill at 834-3004?
July 12, 2009 at 11:23 am
Why do you assume I haven’t?