In an ongoing lawsuit brought by several environmental groups, the Port of Vancouver will have to better account for seven executive-session meetings it held related to the proposed Vancouver Energy oil terminal.
“We expect this will lead to admissions by the port about how each one of the seven contested meetings violated the (Open Public Meetings Act),” said Miles Johnson, an attorney with Columbia Riverkeeper.
Columbia Riverkeeper, the Sierra Club and Northwest Environmental Defense Center are suing the port, alleging it violated the Open Public Meetings Act when it discussed the minimum price for a real estate lease to the Vancouver Energy oil terminal during seven executive sessions held between March and July of 2013.
Recently, Clark County Superior Court Judge David Gregerson allowed the plaintiffs to get more information from the port about what happened during the meetings.
The Superior Court’s action follows a ruling made in June by the Washington State Supreme Court that the port went too far when discussing the minimum price for a real estate lease to the Vancouver Energy oil terminal in executive session.
The court also clarified that a government body may discuss a minimum price figure for the sale or lease of property in executive session, but the factors that set the property’s value must be considered in an open meeting.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision, the port tried in late August to bring the case to an end by taking the unorthodox action of asking for a summary judgment against itself and admitting it violated the Open Public Meetings Act during at least one executive session it held between March and July of 2013.
“Based on this new information, we have asked the Superior Court for a final determination on the executive sessions in question. We believe this is the right thing to do from a transparency and public stewardship standpoint,” Port of Vancouver CEO Julianna Marler said in a news release that announced the motion.
However, the port didn’t specify which or how many meetings violated the law. And, in a motion filed recently, it asked the Clark County Superior Court to protect it from going through the discovery process again with the plaintiffs’ attorneys who want to dig into it further.
“Plaintiffs issued, and the Port responded to, four sets of document requests and three sets of interrogatories to each individual Commissioner and the Port itself. The Port produced over 6,000 pages of discovery to plaintiffs,” the port’s attorneys wrote.
In a response, Columbia Riverkeeper argued that it’s not enough for the port to admit that it violated the Open Public Meetings Act at least once. The organization maintains that the port violated the law at all seven meetings.
“Washington law gives Riverkeeper the right to have a court declare when and how the port violated the Open Public Meetings Act,” Johnson said. “That kind of judicial decision and declaration explaining what the law is and applying it is important, not only for the operation at the Port of Vancouver but how other public ports and entities operate moving forward.”
Sept. 22, the court allowed the discovery to occur but suggested it should be finished before the summary judgment hearing, which will be held on Oct. 26.
Port of Vancouver spokeswoman Abbi Russell said the first discovery was already “very thorough” and the port filed the motion to avoid pouring additional time and energy into the case. Still, the port plans to go through with the discovery.
“Essentially, the request for discovery this time is the same we already answered,” she said.
“There’s nothing more to provide because we already provided it the first time.”
