If David Madore does, indeed, have evidence that the C-Tran board violated the state Open Meetings Act, by all means he should file a complaint. That’s what the county commissioner — and C-Tran board member — said he intended to do, but as of this week no complaint had been filed. As of this week, we have nothing but rhetoric that smacks of desperation on the part of Madore.
Some background: On April 7, the C-Tran board held an unusual closed-door executive session in the middle of its regular board meeting — a meeting at which it approved spending $200,000 to move forward on a Bus Rapid Transit project. Officials later cited sections of RCW 42.30.110 as justification for the meeting, which allows for executive session “when public knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency.” Madore accused the board of violating open-meeting law and said: “We’re just acting as if people, if they knew what we were doing, they might sue us. They might find something. Well, that’s what the Open Public Meetings Act, and that’s what the Public Records Act is supposed to do: hold us all accountable.”
Cynics might be quick to point out that Madore’s protests are hypocritical. He led the charge to hire an unqualified Don Benton to a county job in the most opaque of fashions, and he is working in a clandestine manner on trying to build a third interstate bridge in the area. Openness has not been one of the hallmarks of his governing style.
But Madore is wise to at least raise the discussion about the process in this case; extremism in the defense of open government is no vice. As journalist Daniel Schorr is credited with saying: “I have no doubt that the nation has suffered more from undue secrecy than from undue disclosure. The government takes good care of itself.”