You are on page 1of 7

1

2 3 4

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR THURSTON COUNTY ____________________________________________________________________________ 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12

____________________________________________________________________________ ) ARTHUR WEST, ) plaintiff, ) ) Vs. ) No. ) ESSB 5034 WORK GROUP, ) JOHN LANE, KELLY COOPER, ) PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT KRISTY WEEKS, RICK GARZA, ) FOR VIOLATION OF THE INGRID MUNGIA, DREW SHIRK, ) OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT KATHY RYAN, WASHINGTON ) STATE LIQUOR CONTROL ) BOARD, WASHINGTON STATE, ) defendants ) ______________________________ )_______________________________________

13 I INTRODUCTION

1.1 This is an action for violation of the Open Public Meetings Act by the
14 15 16 17

ESSB section 141 Work Group. 1.2 The Workgroup and all named defendants have violated the OPMA and the doctrine of separation of powers, and plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested. II PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 2.1 Plaintiff West is a person as defined in RCW 42.30.130 and a citizen 5034 Work Group, and testified against ESSB 5034, section 141.
1
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT ARTHUR WEST 120 State Avenue NE #1497 Olympia, WA. 98501

18 with standing to seek relief. He is particularly impacted by the actions of the ESSB 19 20 21

2.2 Defendant ESSB 5034 Work Group is a public entity as defined in RCW 42.30.020 required to act openly and in compliance with the Open Public Meetings 2.3 Defendant John Lane is the Senior Policy Advisor for policy and operations for the Governor of the State of Washington and an ex officio member of 2.4 Defendants Kelly Cooper and Kristy Weeks are officers of the Department

2 Act. 3

4 the Work Group. 5 6 7 8

of Health and members of the Work Group. 2.5 Defendants Drew Shirk and Kathy Ryan are officers of the Department of Revenue and members of the Work Group. 2.6 Defendants Rick Garza and Ingrid Mungia are members of the Work Group. 2.7 The Liquor Control Board is the agency of which the Workgroup is a sub 2.8 The State of Washington is a necessary party to this case. 2.9 The Thurston County Superior Court has jurisdiction over the parties and

9 agency of. 10

11 subject matter of this claim. 12 13

III ALLEGATIONS 3.1 In the 2012 legislative session, ESSB 5034 section 141 was passed as a last minute budget rider requiring the Liquor Control Board to create a sub-agency

14 composed of the Liquor Control Board, the department of revenue, and the 15 16 17

Department of Health to make recommendations to the legislature about medical marijuana policy. Plaintiff West testified against the Bill. 3.2 Despite the clear terms of the statute, defendant Liquor Control Board acted unlawfully and in violation of the maxim of expression unius exclusio alterus to include both the State Executive and legislature in the group in the form of John

18 Lane and numerous Legislative Staff members. Such actions were unlawful and 19 20 21

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

ARTHUR WEST 120 State Avenue NE #1497 Olympia, WA. 98501

1 2 3 4 5

violative of the separation of powers, rendering ESSB 5034 section 141 unconstitutional as applied. 3.3 The LCB failed to respond as required by the PRA or produce the requested records in response to both of these requests, and when it did respond, asserted inappropriate exemptions and withheld records improperly. 3.4 On July 15, August 26, and September 9, 2013 the defendants met and took action as defined in RCW 42.30 unlawfully outside the context of a public meeting. (See Attachment 1, a true and correct copy of a September 10, 2013 ESSB 3.5 These deliberate actions were taken knowingly concealment and with the

6 Work Group Update) 7 intent and effect of concealing the policy making activities of the group from the 8

public. 3.6 When a member of the media attempted to secure a schedule and attend access. 3.7 On September 10, 2013 a members of the Group declined to announced the day before the meeting. provide

9 a meeting of the group, he was informed that the group was private and denied 10

11 plaintiff with the location of their next meeting, stating that the locations were only 12

3.8 By so acting the individual defendants, and each of them violated the 3.9 Further, any decisions or determinations made at the 3 secret meetings of

13 OPMA, for which they are liable. 14 the Work Group must be vacated. 15

3.10 In addition, due to the improper merging of the legislative and executive branches represented by the group in defiance of its statutory mandate, to three State Agencies.

16 the Group should be compelled to adhere ton the law that created it and limited it 17 18 19 20 21

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

ARTHUR WEST 120 State Avenue NE #1497 Olympia, WA. 98501

1 2 3

IV CAUSES OF ACTION 4.1 OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT CLAIMS By their acts and omissions, as described above, each member of the ESSB 5034 Work Group of the Washington State Liquor Control Board violated the Open Public Meetings Act, RCW 42.30, by meeting as a full group or quorum thereof, and meeting, damaging plaintiff, for which they are liable for the relief requested below.

4 conducting deliberations and taking action outside the context of an open public 5 6 4.2 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

By their acts and omissions, defendants have created an uncertainty in the


7 conduct of officers and the implementation of the duties specified in ESSB 5034. A 8

declaratory judgment and the relief requested below is necessary to resolve the uncertainty concerning the duties of the Liquor Control Board under the terms of

9 ESSB 5034 Section 141. 10 11 12

V REQUEST FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief: 5.1. That a ruling issue under the seal of this Court finding the Washington State Liquor Control Boards ESSB 5034 Work Group and each of its members 2013, and assessing penalties against each defendant for each individual violation,

13 violated the Open Public Meetings Act on July 15, August 26, and September 9, 14 and that the Court forever bar the WSLCB and its Work Groups from further 15

violations of the OPMA. 5.2 That a declaratory ruling issue declaring that the LCB violated the the legislature and the executive in a clandestine policy group. 5.3 That all actions and determinations of the Workgroup be vacated 5.4 That plaintiff be awarded costs, and any applicable attorney fees.
4
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT ARTHUR WEST 120 State Avenue NE #1497 Olympia, WA. 98501

16 explicit terms of ESSB 5034 and the doctrine of separation of powers by merging 17 18 19 20 21

I, Arthur West, certify the foregoing to be correct and true under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington. Done September 11, 2013, in

2 Olympia, Washington. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

________________ ARTHUR WEST

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

ARTHUR WEST 120 State Avenue NE #1497 Olympia, WA. 98501

1 2 3 4

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR THURSTON COUNTY 6 ____________________________________________________________________________
5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

____________________________________________________________________________ ) ARTHUR WEST, ) plaintiff, ) ) Vs. ) No. ) ESSB 5034 WORK GROUP, ) JOHN LANE, KELLY COOPER, ) PLAINTIFF'S KRISTY WEEKS, RICK GARZA, ) SUMMONS INGRID MUNGIA, DREW SHIRK, ) KATHY RYAN, WASHINGTON ) STATE LIQUOR CONTROL ) BOARD, WASHINGTON STATE, ) defendants ) ______________________________ )_______________________________________

14 TO THE DEFENDANT:

A lawsuit has been started against you in the above entitled court by Arthur
15 16

West, plaintiff. Plaintiff's claim is stated in the written complaint, a copy of which is served upon you with this summons. In order to defend against this lawsuit, you must respond to the complaint by

17 stating your defense in writing, and by serving a copy upon the person signing this 18 19 20 21

summons within 20 days after the service of this summons, excluding the day of service, or a default judgment may be entered against you without notice. A default
6
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT ARTHUR WEST 120 State Avenue NE #1497 Olympia, WA. 98501

judgment is one where plaintiff is entitled to what he asks for because you have not responded. If you serve a notice of appearance on the undersigned person, you are You may demand that the plaintiff file this lawsuit with the court. If you do so, the demand must be in writing and must be served upon the person signing this lawsuit with the court, or the service on you of this summons and complaint will be

2 entitled to notice before a default judgment may be entered. 3

4 summons. Within 14 days after you serve the demand, the plaintiff must file this 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

void. If you wish to seek the advice of an attorney in this matter, you should do so promptly so that your written response, if any, may be served on time. This summons is issued pursuant to rule 4 of the Superior Court Civil Rules of the State of Washington. Done September 11, 2013, in Olympia, Washington.

____________ Arthur West

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

ARTHUR WEST 120 State Avenue NE #1497 Olympia, WA. 98501