March 29, 2024

Port Angeles City Attorneys Susceptible To Losing Licenses

Port Angeles City Attorneys William Bloor, Chris Cowgill and John Molay may have provided unlawful advice to Staff of whom stand accused, this may also pertain to their private insurance lawyer(s) of whom continued the practice of deception of which may include possible perjury by City Manager and Defendant Nathan West of whom may have provided false statements in a Federal Interrogatory(s).

The suit(s) names Bloor and also Chief Brian Smith, West, Carla Jacobi and Kari Martinez-Bailey all of whom instigated and participate in restricting access to records, a big NO-NO under both The PRA, RCW 42.56, and local Ordinances. Smith is on record complaining about the burden of public records.

Current Records Requests, in progress, regarding advice given by all four attorneys, will reveal if the three, four attorneys are susceptible to having their licenses revoked if the requests not only reveal that they had indeed provided unlawful advice, but failed to act on the possible counts of perjury.

The PRA does not allow, as the authority below clearly depicts and dictates, any type of restriction on a requester’s right of access to public records. This is written in Statute, RCW 42.56 and, Case Law. This can be a more serious violation if the restriction is targeted at a specific requester.

Port Angeles City Ordinance 2.74.030

Each department of the City identifies some records as "over the counter" records and are “routinely” made available to the public. Requests for an over the counter record may be “directed” to the City department that has control of the record.

Port Angeles City Ordinance 2.74.025

The Police Department shall designate its own Public Records Officer. The Police Department Records Officer may be contacted in person at the Port Angeles Police Department or via first class mail addressed to the Public Records Officer at the Port Angeles Police Department.

Germeau v. Mason Cnty., 271 P.3d 932, 941 n.17 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012)

Division One did not articulate an exhaustive list of Department of Corrections employees to whom Parmalee could submit his public records request; instead, the court simply eliminated two particular employees from the list of acceptable PRA request recipients. See Parmelee,148 Wash. App. at 754–55, 201 P.3d 1022.

Zink v. City of Mesa, 140 Wn. App. 328, 140 Wash. App. 328, 166 P.3d 738 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007)

The PDA does not allow an agency to justify its restriction of a citizen's access to records…Absent the adoption of rules and regulations consistent with former RCW 42.17.290, the City's restriction of the Zinks' access to public records amounted to disparate treatment, in violation of former RCW 42.17.270

O'Dea v. City of Tacoma, 493 P.3d 1245, 1252 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021)

"No official format is required for making a records request; however, agencies may recommend that requestors submit requests using an agency provided form or web page." RCW 42.56.080(2). A requester need not expressly reference the PRA. Germeau , 166 Wash. App. at 806, 271 P.3d 932. Nor must a requester submit their request to a designated PRA coordinator. Id. at 806 n.17, 271 P.3d 932.

And, although the requests did not arrive through the City's online PRA submission form, agencies cannot mandate a particular mode of submission. RCW 42.56.080(2) ; Germeau , 166 Wash. App. at 806 n.17, 271 P.3d 932.

“As our Supreme Court has made clear, “[T]here is no official format for a valid P[R]A request.” Hangartner, 151 Wash.2d at 447, 90 P.3d 26; see also Beal, 150 Wash.App. at 874, 877, 209 P.3d 872.” Germeau v. Mason Cnty., 271 P.3d 932, 941 n.17 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).

March 29, 2024 5:02am