A video of my interview with Attorney General Rob McKenna at the Downtown Seattle Republican Club last Monday is now up on video. It will be broadcast several times in the coming days on the Seattle Channel (Comcast 21 in Seattle and elsewhere in the area) Check the schedule for show times.
It's also available in streaming video at the Seattle Channel website. McKenna gave a recap of his first 9 months in office and answered questions from the audience. Topics covered included his efforts to defend open government and the public disclosure laws, combat identity theft and the meth epidemic, and more. Check it out!
A streaming video archive of past programs of the Downtown Seattle Republican Club is here.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 24, 2005 12:01 PM | Email ThisLOVED your reference to Mrs. Gregoire...
Of course the county will not ask for his help in investigating the King County election debacle. He is encouraging you Stefan!
Rob McKenna comes across as a very perceptive politician. I am confident we will see a lot more of him.
Stefan, I continue to hold you in high regard for your hard work on behalf of the Republicans in King County and this entire state.
Posted by: cc on September 24, 2005 01:31 PMStefan: How would you feel about expanding the law to impose criminal penalties for what is clearly malfeasance in responding to records requests?
McKenna: I think the courts would be reluctant to impose criminal penalties if they’re available. I think that we would achieve enough of an incentive for compliance if we strengthen the penalties that were available in terms of fines and maintain the bad faith requirement, in order to be subjective to particularly stiff penalties. I think that civil enforcements probably are adequate where the Public Disclosure Act is concerned.
Stefan: When you say fine, I mean these fines, these are the individuals who commit these violations aren’t subject to these fines. Their agencies are subject to fines, which mean the taxpayers end up paying to protect…
McKenna: That’s true but, because the individuals involved, the government officials, are acting on behalf of the government, it would be very hard to prove they were not acting in their official capacity. So, even if you tried to hold individual officials accountable, it would be, frankly, a very high standard and very difficult to achieve.
How I interpret what he is saying is that as long as a person is acting in their official capacity, they can break the law and not be held personally responsible. Is he saying that laws do not apply to government officials, only individuals? (A rhetorical question)
But criminal penalties for simple failure to comply, I think, would be much more straightforward. Prove that 1) you requested it; 2) they had (or should have had) it; and 3) they didn't provide it within the appropriate amount of time, and it should be pretty straightforward. Especially given the recent ruling in Armen Yousoufian's PDC case, criminal penalties seem like a really good idea.
RE:
Is he saying that laws do not apply to government officials, only individuals?
Seems that's the way it's worked so far. eh?
Posted by: Elmo on September 25, 2005 01:57 AMI'm not a lawyer, but my gut sense is that McKenna is right in that malfeasance would be very difficult to prove -- you get into questions of proving what was in someone's heart and mind when a PDC request was sitting in their inbox. The only one who really knows the answer to those questions is protected against self-incrimination.
Stefan’s question was regarding criminal penalties for what is clearly malfeasance. Charges for malfeasance would mean that probable cause of intent (what is in their heart and mind) is already obvious. Penalties would only occur once intent was proven in court. McKenna’s response to the penalties question was that he felt civil penalties (e.g. taxpayer dollars) are sufficient deterrence. Taxpayer dollars for official acts of malfeasance are not deterrence as there is no personal consequence. His response attempts to differentiate between an individual’s act of malfeasance and an official’s act of malfeasance. He says that an individual acting in an official capacity would reluctantly be held personally responsible by the courts. He states that holding an individual accountable, acting in an official capacity, would be a very high standard and very difficult to achieve. One would think that public officials should be held to a higher standard of conduct. His response says that they are actually held to a much lower standard, even to the point where breaking the law is acceptable as long as one is acting in their official capacity.