The Washington state port has fought a lawsuit regarding closed executive sessions since 2013, when multiple organizations alleged the port violated Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) standards.
The Port of Vancouver, Wash., is battling a lawsuit that alleges its 2013 closed executive sessions violated OPMA standards.
The Port of Vancouver, Wash., has moved for summary judgment in
a lawsuit regarding closed executive sessions in 2013, the port
announced on Aug 30.
Originally brought against the Pacific Northwest port by Columbia Riverkeeper, Sierra Club and the Northwest Environmental Defense Center, the lawsuit states the port violated Washington state’s Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) when it held executive sessions between March and July 2013 to discuss the minimum price of real estate related to the Vancouver Energy lease.
Columbia Riverkeeper, an environmental organization located in Oregon, at the time stated on its website that, “Riverkeeper looks forward to presenting our case that the port should make decisions in a transparent manner and involve the public. The proposed Tesoro oil terminal is a serious threat to the Columbia River and our communities.”
However, in July 2015, Clark County Superior Court Judge David E.
Gregerson ruled in the port’s favor on five of the executive sessions in
question.
An appellate court sought clarification on the interpretation of minimum price as it is defined in the OPMA following the Clark County decision. As a result, the Supreme Court issued a decision on June 8, 2017, that
provided the first interpretation by the court of minimum price as it relates
to real estate, said the port.
The court then went a step farther and provided “procedural
guidance on the order of public meetings and executive sessions when discussing
minimum price,” said the port. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Superior Court for a
new decision based on that interpretation.
The port said it has analyzed the Supreme Court’s decision carefully and
has concluded that at least one of the executive sessions held between March
and July 2013 does not comply with the new interpretation of the OPMA.
“We were acting in good faith and believed we were complying
with the law when we held these executive sessions in 2013,” said port CEO
Julianna Marler. “But we now have, for the first time, interpretation and
guidance from the courts on the timing of public meetings and executive
sessions.
“Based on this new information, we have asked the Superior
Court for a final determination on the executive sessions in question,” said Marler. “We
believe this is the right thing to do from a transparency and public
stewardship standpoint, and we hope to resolve the case by the end of the
year.”
The port notes that if the summary judgement is granted, it will not affect the validity
of the Vancouver Energy lease. Vancouver “fully retraced its steps” in compliance
with the OPMA when the commission approved the lease during a public meeting in
October 2013, the port said.