Posts Tagged ‘attorney’

I read an interesting article this week in the Spokesman-Review about Eagle High School in Boise, where biology teacher Misty Sterk is teaching a semester long class in forensic science.  (See article).  I found this interesting because forensic science can be a little gruesome.   High school students need to be treated with a little more caution then college kids.  I sometime coach mock trial teams in high school, and I try to be careful with kids even on the subject of court cases.

Ketchup from the lunch room?

But in this class apparently, the kids are not particularly squeamish.  One student explained to the reporter: “With a knife wound, for example, a blood spatter indicating a downward trajectory means the attacker was probably right-handed, because with a left-handed person the spatter would be more horizontal.”   The article goes on to explain that the class “is getting students excited about science by processing a crime scene, using maggots to determine time of death, fingerprinting, analyzing blood spatters, and determining race and sex based on skeletal remains, DNA testing and ballistics.”

The article made me wonder how the blood spatter science could be appropriately taught in a high school.   When I took a course at the state police academy near Seattle, blood spatter science was taught in the gymnasium.  First the instructor spread out giant sheets of white paper over the floor.  Next he swung a bat repeatedly into a sponge soaked with pigs blood.  We studied how the blood droplets struck the paper.   I am not sure you can teach the subject with fake blood because any other substance will have a different viscosity and surface tension.   I am sure the teacher, being a pro, has found some way to teach this in a manner appropriate for kids.  In the world of forensics, the science is usually referred to as blood “spatter” rather than blood “splatter” but the two words are really synonyms.

I would bet that the part of the course on identification of human bones would be pretty interesting.  In 1998, I took a class in forensic anthropology at Eastern Washington University taught by Dr. Sarah Keller.   Also in the class was attorney Karl Sloan, who is now the Okanogan County Prosecuting Attorney.   The “final exam” for the class consisted of  being handed a bunch of bones in a shoe box and having to identify them.   Some bones are pretty basic, but the bones in the hands and feet are almost impossible to identify.  The subject of identification of bones  does not come up too often in forensics.  I did see, however, that this was an issue in a recent fire in Curlew, Washington.  In the news story, it was explained that a forensic anthropologist was needed to assist in identifying the bones.   The class I took at EWU didn’t make anyone an expert, but it helped teach the basic science.  Dr. Keller explained that people would be shocked at how many times police detectives would bring in a bone for her to examine that was clearly an animal bone, and that that should have been obvious.  She explained that certain bear bones can often appear to be human bones.

The television show C.S.I. has been on for about ten years.  It has been very popular and has drawn a lot of student interest in the profession.  Even many students at Eagle High School were interested in it.  Both Eastern Washington University and Seattle University have 4-year degrees available in forensics.   But despite the growing interest in the field of forensic scientists, the labs always seem to be short-staffed.  Last week, the Skagit Valley Herald printed an article describing how a shortage of qualified technicians in the state crime lab has created a huge backlog of evidence to be tested, even in serious cases such as shootings.   Washington State is trying to recruit forensic science technicians from as far away as South Africa.  A list of schools teaching forensic science is available here.  I looked at Gonzaga’s website and it does not appear that they have a degree program in forensic science at this time.

Forensic science plays a roll more and more in court cases.  The science changes all the time and criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors keep up through various trainings around the country.   If a defense lawyer does not know the science well, it is difficult to properly defend his or her client.   The use of faulty forensic science is a big cause of wrongful convictions.  About 1/2 of the 232 people that the Innocence Project has helped free were originally convicted at trial by “unvalidated or improper” forensics.    Last February, the National Academy of Science issued a report criticizing the sloppy practices of crime labs, imprecise scientific tests, and the exaggeration in court of the scientific reliability of results.   Many of these tests criticized are similar to scientific results being used (or misused) in the courts of Spokane County, Grant County, Okanogan County and other areas of Eastern Washington.

When a person thinks of their constitutional rights, they often think of their right to free speech, or to bear arms, or the right to a jury trial.  The Washington Supreme Court dealt last week with a right that we do not always think of.  That is, the right to a “public” trial.   This was in the case of State v. Strode, a case originating out of Ferry County.  The right to a public trial is in the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads:   In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

In the case of State v. Strode the Supreme Court had to decide whether it was appropriate for a judge to question potential jurors in chambers, as opposed to the open courtroom.   On certain cases, the parties obviously want to know whether a juror has been the victim of, or been charged with the crime in question.   The practice usually involves the judge inviting the juror back to chambers, along with the prosecutor, defense attorney, and defendant.   The State Supreme Court ruled that this may be acceptable in certain circumstances as long as a certain analysis is done on the record justifying the decision.

Although we learn about our constitutional rights in school, lay people I work with are often surprised at the way that the right to a public trial works.   It is often thought that it is acceptable to “close the courtroom” at certain times or even to allow a child witness, for example, to speak to the judge privately in chambers.   Such practices are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution for criminal trials.

This right to a “public” trial has come up several times in my practice as a criminal defense lawyer.  I once had a trial where an undercover cop was testifying about work he did on a case.  Although his identity was known to me and my client, the agent still had other cases that he was working elsewhere in the state.  The prosecutor moved to close the courtroom, but the judge had to deny the motion.

As we know courtrooms are often pretty empty during a trial.  Often times the defendant’s family will be present or a spouse of a juror will attend. However, it is any person’s right to just come in to a court and watch a trial or a docket.  When I travel to different places I often like to visit the local courthouse.  I once sat through a half-day trial in New York City, and when I was in law school, I often sat through jury trials in Spokane.  The right to a public trial belongs to a defendant, but also to the public.  Often times, it is the news media who raises this issue.

I once worked as a defense lawyer on a First Degree Murder case in Ferry County where the issue of a public trial arose.   The electronic locks on the courthouse doors lock automatically at 4:00 p.m.  The attorney general prosecuting the case stepped outside for a breath of fresh air during the recess and was locked out.  After a while, when court was set to resume we wondered where he went and found him outside.   Needless to say, the settings were changed on those locks.  Although it may seem a bit silly to some, locked doors at a courthouse would have required a new trial had it not been fixed.

Several years ago, I had a case in Okanogan County where a 6-year-old child was testifying during a non-jury trial.   The case dragged on through the morning, and people started to arrive for the afternoon traffic court docket.   The courtroom that had been previously empty started to fill up, and the pro tem judge directed the bailiff to post a sign on the door directing defendants to wait outside until their case was called.  I wondered if this was permissible, but the issue never got to the appeal level.

In the case of State v. Strode, the Supreme Court granted the request of the defense attorney for a new trial.

Under certain circumstances a person convicted of a crime can take steps to get the conviction off his or her record.   When this is achieved, the court orders police agencies and court clerks to change their records.   A problem arises in that private data collection companies are gathering conviction data through public records requests and maintaining and selling such records long after the conviction is vacated.  This is not fair to the individual who attempted to vacate, or expunge, or seal the record.

Private data collections, many of which advertise online, continue to sell criminal conviction data on records that courts have vacated or expunged.

Most court records on criminal cases are public.  Even juvenile court case files are typically open to public inspection.  The items in a criminal file that are not open to the public are such things as psychological evaluation, applications for appointed counsel, etc.  Typically, if a person has stayed out of trouble for a certain number of years, then they can apply to have their conviction vacated.  This is true of most misdemeanors (except DUI) and most low-level felonies.  A site that provides some guidance on how to seal and vacate convictions is www.courts.wa.gov.  The site also explains the process of a juvenile court expungement.  As you can see from the standard misdemeanor form provided, the court will order that: “For all purposes, the defendant may state that he or she has never been convicted of the offense listed….” Reading this, a person feels free to deny the existence of ever having such a conviction when they apply for a job.  Employers will often try to get applicants to list convictions that have been vacated or expunged.  Often an application will read as follows: “Have you ever been charged, convicted or admitted committing, or are you awaiting trial for any crime? You must answer “yes”, even if the matter was later dismissed, deferred vacated or expunged.”  A potential employer will often use public records searches to check for criminal convictions.  Searching an individual’s criminal history is not always very difficult.  Earlier this year, I wrote an article for Helium.com about criminal history searches.  A person need not be an attorney or lawyer to conduct such searches.  Searches through these traditional means will not typically turn up convictions that have been vacated or expunged.  The problem arises when criminal history searches are conducted through private data collection services.  The other thing that I  have found is that many times the criminal records that these private companies provide are inaccurate.  I worked as a defense lawyer on a court case in Stevens County last year and used an online service to run criminal history checks.  It turned out that when we checked the same individuals through the FBI, that the online service only had about half of the conviction data correct.

In my opinion, new legislation is needed to require that private data collection companies provide accurate records.  If an individual succeeds in vacating, sealing, or expunging his record, the online services should have an obligation to update their records as well.

Since I mentioned Helium.com, let me tell you a little more about that.  Helium is an online writers cooperative that also provides services for writers who also blog.  Visit that site or email Barbara Whitlock at  bwhitlock@helium.com for more information.  Helium is always looking for attorneys and other professionals with expertise to share to join their writer’s community.

The Spokesman-Review  ran a story Thursday raising questions about the way an attorney for the city, Rocky Treppiedi, has gone about defending the lawsuit filed by the relatives of Otto Zehm.    The attorney is defending the city of Spokane from a lawsuit filed by the relatives, while at the same time federal prosecutors are investigating and prosecuting Officer Karl Thompson who was involved in the death of Zehm.  (See earlier related blog post).    The Spokesman-Review reported that Treppiedi has been accused of “gleaning information from police and civilian witnesses called to testify before the federal grand jury and then [feeding] that information to  Thompson….”   And that this occurred even after the Spokane Police Chief imposed a gag order on her employees.   Treppiedi is not a police department employee.  At this time, it is not entirely clear how this was inappropriate.  The city attorneys will have a chance to respond in writing to this allegation, which was apparently brought by an attorney in the criminal case.  The attorney has been accused of taking a heavy-handed approach to defending the city, and the Otto Zehm case raises interesting questions of what a city attorney’s job is when defending allegations of police misconduct.  

While I understand the charges against the police, I don’t understand how the city attorney has come under so much fire.   When government employees mess up, even in a big and public way, it is still the city’s job to try to defend the matter.   After the city was sued, the city filed a formal response to the suit as required by law.  The response took the position that the officers’ response and their use of force was justified by the actions of Otto Zehm on the night in question.  The Spokesman-Review reported on this in a story entitled: “Zehm to blame for fight with officers, city says”.   The story explains how the Treppiedi’s response took the position that any use of force against Zehm was justified because Zehm resisted arrest.  When I read this at the time it seemed like the city attorney was just doing his job.  It is his job to defend the actions taken by the officers on that night in question, and he is really just the messenger.  Attorneys have clients to defend.  For some reasons this seems to be better understood by the public when an attorney is representing a person accused of a crime, rather than a governmental agency in a civil suit.

Spokane City Councilman Bob Apple criticized the way that the city defended the Zehm lawsuit.  (Listen to interview.)  He described the city’s position as an attitude of basically, ‘We’re not responsible and this life [Zehm's] isn’t worth anything.”   He is correct that the city is denying responsibility, but when I read the entire response the city filed, I did not see the city attorney say or even suggest that Otto Zehm’s life was not worth anything.

I saw a letter to the editor Friday from Karen Dorn Steele, a former reporter for the Spokesman.   She criticizes Treppiedi, and complains about a lot of things he has done in the past that she does not like.  Fair enough.  But then she writes: “A city attorney is supposed to represent the public interest, not a few rogue elements of the police department.”   Unfortunately, the city attorney has to do both.  He has to vigorously take the position that the police acted reasonably, and the other side takes the position that the police did not.  And then the jury makes the decision.  In this case, it would not surprise me if the city is found to be liable for a million dollars or more.   But if the city is to be found liable, the public needs to know that the city did its best to minimize the damage.  You would hope that when a person is harmed by the government that the government would try to resolve this outside of court for fair compensation.  However, these discussions are rarely made public, so it is really hard to say if the city is playing hardball in this case.

Relations between the city attorney and the Spokesman-Review are not helped by the fact that Treppiedi once referred to the paper as the “local fishwrap”.  See story.   The city attorney made this statement in an email to Mayor Jim West when West faced a scandal involving sex with a high school  student.  Treppiedi told West: “Mr. Mayor – hang in there – the local fishwrap is out to sell papers, and you’re out to serve citizens.”  While it is a city attorney’s job to defend the actions by city employees, it is also his or her job to try to prevent any misconduct from happening again, and to minimize damage.    A city attorney’s job is to tell the city bluntly how the employee messed up and to work with city leaders how to prevent the problem from happening again.  But again, this is all out of public view.  I guess in the instance of his email to West, the city attorney may have been better off telling West to resign, or at least saying nothing.

I once had the chance to assist in defending a government from allegations of police misconduct.  The lawyer from the insurance company (who was paid buy the hour) did not want to tell the police the truth about how they messed up, and did not want to make any settlement offer at all.  This made him very popular with the police, but actually did the police a disservice by not helping them learn from their mistake.  I let the insurance company know how I felt.

I hope that the public doesn’t forget about the broader issues of police accountability.  Sometimes there is a highly publicized excessive force case, and people forget about the smaller cases.  Rodney King, for example, was assaulted by the police,  and received a settlement of 3.8 million.  But I am sure there were less sensational cases of police abuse where the victims could not even find an attorney, much less receive compensation.  The public deserves a police ombudsman with sufficient powers to curtail the problem.

On Monday, I did a jury trial in Spokane where a man was accused of assaulting a police officer.   The police officer tazed my client several times.  Under the police guidelines, an officer cannot use the taser unless facing “assaultive” conduct.  I suspected the police alleged that the “assault” occurred in order to justify (after the fact) the amount of force that the police used on him.  The officer testified well and seemed very credible.  The next day an independent witness came forward and stated that, unbeknownst to the officer, she had witnessed the whole incident through  her blinds.  She did not see the defendant assault the officer, and the jury believed her.

I noticed in my years working as a prosecuting attorney that police officers often had a rather black-and-white view of the world.  It was good versus evil, with not a lot of in between.  They did not seem to wonder too often if a person charged was truly guilty – it was usually assumed.   I don’t think I ever heard it questioned whether a defendant was receiving a fair trial, or if the media was giving the accused a fair shake.  Then, on June 22nd, 2009, it was announced that Office Karl F. Thompson was being charged in federal court with two felonies related to the death of Otto Zehm, the mentally disabled janitor the police beat and tased at Zip-Trip while he bought a soda on March 20th, 2009.   As that indictment was handed down, I kind of wondered what response the police community would have to Karl Thompson’s indictment.  Would they explain his actions away as those of one bad apple, or would they rally in his defense?

Well, I received my answer this week when I noticed online that Karl Thompson’s supporters had created a Face Book “fan page” for him.   The page promotes the sale of bracelets for $10 each.  The page blames the media for making Karl Thompson a “media scapegoat,” but then writes: “Thanks to the story in the Spokesman-Review, demand for the wristbands has increased.”  As of today, the page had almost 230 fans.

See news story about indictment:

I will continue to follow the case of U.S. v. Karl Thompson, as well as the civil suit the family of Otto Zehm as brought against Karl Thompson and the City of Spokane.   The Center of Justice in Spokane has a website about Otto Zehm. A central issue in both the civil case and the criminal case will be Thompson’s compliance with Spokane County’s use of force policy. The policy authorizes varying level of force depending on the threat that the police encounter.

When interviewed by police officials, Karl Thompson admitted that Otto Zehm did not try to strike him, but explained that Zehm refused to drop the plastic bottle of soda he was carrying. Thompson stated that he feared the two-liter bottle could be used as a weapon.  When interviewed, Thompson explained that the learning-disabled Zehm responded “why?” when Thompson told him to drop his soda.  Thompson explained that he struck Zehm first in the leg with the police baton trying to knock him to the ground. The store video in Zip Trip is partially obscured by the store shelves but it shows the officer standing over Zehm from behind.

The Stevens County Commissioners are currently thinking over who they want to appoint to replace Pam Payne as District Court Judge.  As of 12 noon today a decision had not been announced.  Pam Payne announced her decision to leave the bench last month.  When a Superior Court Judge resigns midway through a term, it is the Governor who makes the appointment.  But with District Court, the decision belongs to the County Commissioners.  Once the County Commissioners appoint someone, that judge faces an election of the voters.  Traditionally, County Commissioners often consider some input from the other judges who preside and often times other government officials and local lawyers write to offer their opinions.  The commissioners then interview prospective candidates.   As well as intelligence, experience, and fairness, the temperament of an attorney is typically considered.  There have been several attorneys whose names have been mentioned as interested in the position.

The District Court judge hears small claims, small suits, name changes, and presides of misdemeanors such as DUI, minor assaults, etc.   Pam Payne always seemed to be pretty well thought of by prosecutors and defense attorneys alike.  I practiced law in front of her regularly my first year of private practice in 2003.  I always found her to be very fair.   Pam Payne, while she was a Stevens County Judge, often times would come to Ferry County once per month to preside.

Last week, I wrote about the young among us with electoral ambitions.  (article).  Now, I write about the older folks.  The Washington State Constitution prohibits attorneys from serving as judges once they turn 75 years old.

You are NOT taking my gavel

The State Constitution provides: A judge of the supreme court or the superior court shall retire from judicial office at the end of the calendar year in which he attains the age of seventy-five years. The legislature may, from time to time, fix a lesser age for mandatory retirement, not earlier than the end of the calendar year in which any such judge attains the age of seventy years, as the legislature deems proper.

Is that fair?

In June, I was in Chelan for some training, and State Supreme Court Justice Gerry Alexander was one of the speakers.  He mentioned to us that he would be unable to serve much longer because he would turn 75 before his term expired.  He did not seem too happy about that fact, but he did not solicit the help of the attorneys in trying to amend the Constitution.   Nevertheless, I have seen opinion pieces popping up suggesting that the law be changed to allow judges to serve longer.   There is a blog I read called  Supreme Court of Washington Blog, that brought to my attention an editorial in the Vancouver Columbian that strongly criticizes this mandatory retirement age for judges.  The Columbian points out that this rule was created in 1952, and that people are living longer.  I agree that this age limit of 75 should be changed.  Seeing Justice Alexander give his presentation in June, he certainly seemed like he was on top of his game.  When I represented Ferry County in front of the Supreme Court on a Growth Management Act case, he certainly seemed like a very thoughtful justice.   However, the Columbian editorial took the position that there should be no upper limit to judicial retirement age at all.  I am not sure I agree with that.  On one hand it makes sense to let the voters make up their own minds.  But on the other hand, it is a historical fact that sometimes judge in our society have not always known when to hang up their black robe.   In his book, The Psychology of the Supreme Court, Lawrence Wrightsman, writes:  Some Justices become physically disabled or even senile, but refuse to retire.  Justice William O. Douglas had a stroke on the last day of 1974 that left him partially paralyzed.  His speech was impaired, and one arm and one leg did not function.  he missed much of the 1974-75 term, returned in the Fall of 1975, and was not at full strength.  In fact, he was often confused and would refer to people by the wrong names, or not be able to respond at all.

But it is not just stubbornness that sometimes leads judges to hang on past their prime.  Wrightsman explains that several justices refused to retire until they could be assured that someone with similar views would replace them.

The Columbian takes the position that the answer to judicial retirement is simple – it should be left to the voters and that there should be no mandatory retirement age at all.  That would worry me.   Is it really dignified to have the possible senility of judges to be discussed in the public realm?  What attorney in his or her right mind would want to level that sort of accusation against a judge?  Is it left to the fellow justices on the court?   When William Douglas grew incapacitated while still on the bench, all the other judges agreed to simply continue to the following year any cases in which he was the deciding vote.  But none of those judges at the time publicly criticized the judge, or suggested his impeachment.  So is it left to the newspapers to ferret out judges that are too old for the job?  Does the Columbian really want to discuss the senility of justices in their election-year editorials?

What does everyone else think?  Should the upper limit be increased to 78 or 80?  Maybe the law should be changed so that any judge elected before age 75 could at least serve out the rest of his or her term.  What advantages are there to having a judge that is over 75?

How young is too young to run for election?  This subject came up in an earlier blog post that discussed potential sheriff candidates.    A reader shared that he thought that one local Sheriff’s deputy, were he to run for sheriff, would be way too young.  See comment.  That surprised me a little bit.  I always assumed that a person in their mid-thirties was in pretty solid territory age-wise to run for a job for a local elected official.  I may be a little biased because when I was elected prosecuting attorney in 1998, I was only 28 years old. I have to admit, I felt a little iffy about stepping into the political ring at that age. But at the time I was aware that our state representative, Cathy McMorris, was only 29.   Cathy McMorris was elected to the State Legislature when she was only 24.   Cathy McMorris (now known as Cathy McMorris Rodgers) went on to become the State legislature’s minority leader, and later was elected to US congress at age 35.

The subject of  a suitable age of an elected official has arisen recently in the political campaign for prosecuting attorney in Grant County.   Earlier this year a deputy prosecutor by the name of Angus Lee was appointed to step in to replace John Knodell who was elected judge.   Angus Lee was appointed by the commissioners.   Angus Lee is 32 years old, and is a 2004 graduate of law school.  When I was elected prosecuting attorney at 28, the issue that was the hardest for me was managing people and running an office.   I think the trial work can pretty much be handled by any prosecutor with a few years under his or her belt.   In Grant County, Angus Lee has a pretty big office to run, and lately his office has had a lot of turnover, as other prosecutors get used to their new boss.    I don’t know Angus Lee too well because I have only had one case with him.

I read in the Spokesman Review last week that an 18-year-old high school senior by the name of Greg Ridgley was running for city council in Spokane.  Now an 18-year-old on city council would be pretty interesting, don’t you think?   Greg Ridgley’s campaign seems pretty low key right now.   When I looked him up online, he didn’t have a web page up.    I had court in Spokane this morning and I looked all over for his campaign signs but I didn’t see any.  Ridgley has a facebook page that discussed his campaign and his recent trip to Australia as a youth ambassador.  My suggestion to him would be to promote his campaign as much as possible on the internet.  The use of the internet in politics is a very hot topic in the media.  See for example the debate of Jennifer Gregerson’s use of Twitter.  See article.  It seems that if Greg Ridgley found a way to use the internet for his campaign in a novel way, he would garner more attention.  Greg Ridgley is going to be a senior at Gonzaga Prep and is running as a Republican.  The funniest thing about Greg Ridgley’s campaign is the interesting comments that people have made about his campaign on the internet.   None of the comments have been disparaging.  One Spokane resident posted a comment that Greg Ridgley “has to have more sense then the rest of them and he has not had much of a chance to be corrupted.” Another wrote of Ridgley “Pure honesty and interest to help the community. No good old boys to owe. Fresh. Clean. Passionate. Way to go. The rest of his peers who can vote will be doing it”.  See comments.

What would people think about an 18-year-old senior running for city council in Republic, or Colville or Okanogan?  It seems like people would be more receptive to an 18-year-old on a city council, rather than in a position of mayor where more power is placed in a single position.   An 18-year-old running for sheriff would seem to pose a problem.   Under State law, a person has to be 21 to carry a hand gun.

As for me, I would not have a problem voting for a person in their 30′s for sheriff.  What do you all think?

It must have been a slow news week for West-side news reporters covering city council meetings in the Seattle area.  The talk of the town was Jennifer Gregerson, a city council member for Mukilteo who posted on Twitter the following message:

City staff and some council now Debriefing and relaxing at ivars for late night happy hour. Time for dinner, I think!

The council member posted this message on the way to Ivar’s restaurant, and it raised eye brows because it turned out that a total of four council members showed up and thus the informal group constituted a quorum of the council. The Open Public Meetings Act makes it illegal to discuss business unless a meeting of a quorum is open to the public.   When I read the councilwoman’s Twitter post, it was pretty clear to me that no official business was discussed, and that going to a to a “late night happy hour” for “debriefing” was a euphemism for getting a little drunk with friends.  But this ambiguous term “debriefing” led the Snohomish County HeraldNet to lead with the headline: “’Tweets’ bring possibly illegal meeting to light.”  Huh?  Don’t people realize that city council members might enjoy talking about something else besides council business?  It turned out another council member, Kevin Stolz saw the get together, and rather than join the group, he called the media.   An Assistant Attorney General who was consulted for the story explained that it is not illegal for public officials to get together as long as they do not discuss official business.  A city lawyer was present at Ivars that evening and confirmed that no business was discussed.  The council member who complained also commented: “And the Twitter thing? That just should not have happened.”   But why would it be wrong for a council member to post on Twitter what is going on with city business?    It turned out Councilwoman Gregerson posted 28 updates on Twitter during the meeting earlier that evening.   Twitter is a transparent medium and any member of the public can follow what is going on with their government.   Contrast this with private emails that might be circulated among council members.   Even the HerlandNet (in a follow-up article) stated: “We applaud Gregerson for ‘tweeting’ from the hearing — it’s a step forward in government transparency when an official shares her thoughts and observations with the public in real time.”

For those not familiar with Twitter, it is a “micro-blogging” service that allows users to posts short updates of about 30 words at a time.   Twitter is a medium that has a reputation for being somewhat trivial, and it is true that some celebrities use it to post the most inane details of their lives.   But Twitter has the capability to transform government.   It is through Twitter and other social media that the world has had a steady stream of information on the Iranian election protests after all the journalists had been deported or jailed.  See “Twitter Tells Tale of Iranian Election“.   Here at home, wouldn’t Twitter posts during a meeting alert the public when a certain topic came up on the agenda?   How many times have you sat through a meeting for hours waiting for a certain subject to come up?  The meeting that was occurring on the night in question in Mukilteo was not even a city council meeting, it was a meeting of the Boundary Review Board.  Zzzzzzzzzz………  Who would want to sit through three hours of that?  Do we really think the council members would want to talk about that meeting in their spare time?

Despite the HeraldNet’s headline about “possibly illegal meetings,” the online readers seemed to recognize that the matter was largely blown out of proportion.   Many readers commented that it was a tempest in a teapot.   It is apparent that Councilman Kevin Stolz had an ax to grind, and was using the media to go after his rivals on the city council.

The Colville City Council recently voted unanimously to go forward with a feasibility study for a new airport that would be constructed in the area of Aladdin Road in Colville. Many members of the public in Stevens County are up in arms over this due to environmental concerns. Judging by the letters to the editor and discussions with a few of the locals, the city may have a fight on their hands.

The Statesmen-Examiner reported that people living near the planned airport expressed concerns at the public meeting about the noise of a new airport. In addition the public expressed concerns about air pollution and the threat to the city aquifer. Although I have dealt with issues of ground water contamination before, I have never dealt with the subject of contamination from an airport. A lot of the letters to the editor in the Statesmen-Examiner raised some pretty serious environmental fears. One letter wrote:

The airport would be built directly over the Colville aquifer, the source of Colville’s water. Concerns were expressed that the building on this land will compromise the integrity of the aquifer. Former pilots gave personal accounts of fuel leakage and ground contamination at other airports, stating, “over time, jet fuels will even seep through concrete.”

This seemed a little far fetched to me. It seemed to me that the leakage of jet fuels would be pretty minimal, and it seemed that such fuel would be quite light, and would not permeate concrete. So I called an independent source that I know on the East Coast who works as an expert witness on the subject of ground water contamination. He is pretty sensible in his assessments of environmental threats. He told me that airports are in fact significant sources of groundwater contamination from jet fuels and solvents, and that all airports have some level of contamination associated with them. He explained that contamination comes from broken fuel lines, fueling accidents, painting stations, repair shops etc. He explained that concrete is in fact permeable. He said that the permeability of concrete is low, but even if just a small bit of contaminant permeates into the water it will violate standards.

I learned not to take drinking water for granted earlier this year. In my town, residents were forced to boil our water for three weeks when it was determined that E. coli had been found in the water. This was a little bit of an eye opener for me. But boiling water contaminated with fuels or solvents won’t help. When our water was contaminated, I wondered what small cities can do to fix the problem when they are financially unable solve the problem.

So, as to the proposed new airport in Colville, when is the proper time to consider the impact on the aquifer? Right now the city is just doing a feasibility study. Yet Stevens County residents complained about the cost of that study. Should a threshold determination be made to determine whether the airport location would be even environmentally possible? Or would the subject wait years later until an environmental impact statement is done? One question that I have is whether or not the area is an aquifer recharge area. If so, it is customary for a lot of airport functions and activities to be banned out right.

The other subject that came up in the letters to the editor was the subject of air pollution. It would be interesting to hear what an expert would say about this. Some comments by members of the public were about the severe winds in the area of the airport. Other members of the public mentioned that the area was prone to stagnant air that would allow air pollution to accumulate. Maybe the weather varies.

In the last two weeks, all the letters to the editor in the Statesman Examiner have been opposed to the new airport and the feasibility study. The Statesman Examiner typically has a policy of limiting letters to the editor to 300 words, but allowed one letter that was close to 2000 words and took about nearly ½ a page. It will be interesting to see if supporters of the airport or of the feasibility study will submit any letters to the editor this week.

Aside from any environmental concerns, some members of the public did not want the airport because it would involve the condemning of private lands. Although people tend to forget this sometimes, cities have similar powers to condemn private land for a public purpose and pay the land owner just compensation, just the state and federal governments can do. It is one thing when you are a farmer and you lose part of your land because of Interstate 90. It is another thing when your land is taken by a local city council on a project that you and the community do not think is worthwhile in the first place. In the past, city governments could vote to authorize land to be taken without any special notice to the landowner in advance. But under a new law enacted in 2007 (RCW 8.25.290) a city must send a certified letter to each landowner who might face the condemnation of his land. The notice must contain a description of the property to be taken, and must notify the land owner of the date and time of the public hearing at which time the condemner (the city) will decide whether or not to authorize the condemnation of the private land. In cases that I have defended in the past, it seems as if sometimes governments go out of their way to find an appraiser that is particularly conservative. As an attorney, I have found that hard feelings are common in these small-town condemnations because oftentimes the city council members are the friends and neighbors of the landowners. If a condemnation is fought in court, a judge decides whether the condemnation is for a public purpose, and a jury decides the amount the landowner should receive.  The lawyer for the landowner commonly seeks his or her own expert to testify as to the value.

It will be interesting to see what the feasibility study comes up with. If the study encourages the City of Colville to go forward with the airport as planned, it will more be interesting to see what comes of this issue.