Political Buzz

Talking WA politics.

NOTICE: Political Buzz has moved.

With the launch of our new website, we've moved Political Buzz.
Visit the new section.

Ombudsman: Tacoma’s billboards settlement raises open government questions

Post by Lewis Kamb / The News Tribune on Aug. 3, 2010 at 1:32 pm with 12 Comments »
August 3, 2010 4:44 pm

The city’s approved settlement with Clear Channel Outdoor over a federal lawsuit about billboards came up quickly and quietly, added as a last minute agenda item to last week’s council meeting a few hours after the council met to discuss the issue in a closed-door executive session.

(The settlement, which we wrote about here and here, essentially would allow Clear Channel to build as many as 36 new digital billboards in the city if it removes up to 240 current billboards and relinquishes up to 169 permits it now holds to build new ones. City officials have said if maxed out, the deal would remove as much as 85 percent of current billboards. The settlement also means Clear Channel would drop its federal lawsuit alleging constitutional violations against the city’s 1997 ordinance that called for large billboards to be removed by 2007.)

At last week’s council meeting, after Mayor Marilyn Strickland read a lengthy statement explaining details of the settlement, the council voted unanimously — and without discussion — to approve the deal’s terms.

Ever since, several council members have been reluctant to speak with me about the settlement — either by not returning my calls, offering no comment for the record, or, speaking very carefully and/or generally about the issue (In general, some members have told me the settlement is a good deal that will take most billboards off the street and largely protect the residential atmosphere of most neighborhoods, plus end an ongoing and costly lawsuit).

The council’s handling of the issue is reminiscent of its process to name finalists for appointment to two open council seats earlier this year. After a closed-door meeting, the council emerged from an executive session then, and, without discussion, unanimously approved eight finalists from more than 40 applicants to advance in the appointment process. The News Tribune ultimately filed a lawsuit over the council’s actions then, winning a first-of-its-kind court ruling that ordered the council to audio record any further closed sessions regarding the appointment. On Sunday, Peter Callaghan opined about the similarities of the council’s actions then with last week’s billboard settlement.

Tim Ford, open government ombudsman for the state Attorney General’s Office, told me last week he won’t go so far as to say whether the council’s executive session actions this time around were or weren’t legal without knowing more about what went on behind closed doors. But, the council’s in-public actions certainly raise questions, he said.

“Whenever there’s some lack of (public) discussion, I always have a question as to why,” Ford said. “I think where there’s an opportunity where they could hold some discussion, then they should.”

Even though the issue at hand involved a legal settlement, its terms obviously have bearing on public policy, Ford agreed. And, the fact that the city made copies of the settlement agreement publicly available at the meeting indicates they probably could have had a broader public discussion, Ford said.

“With regard to litigation, it can get really tricky,” Ford said. “If you’re going to discuss a settlement, the terms of the settlement could be compromised due to public discussion.”

“But, if they gave (the public) a copy (of the settlement agreement) and it’s not privileged or confidential, I suppose they could’ve had a discussion that would have been helpful to the public,” Ford added.

Greg Overstreet, an expert on state open government law who preceded Ford as the AG’s ombudsman, said he can’t say based on what’s publicly known if the city council strictly adhered to the state’s Open Public Meetings Act. If they did not come to some sort of agreement behind closed doors on the settlement, he said, members acted appropriately, legally speaking.

Still, Overstreet added the council could have opted to have a broader public discussion and given the public advance notice of its actions.

“Just because it’s a lawsuit and just because there are lawyers involved doesn’t mean the matter cannot be talked about in public,” he said. “… What the law allows you to do and what you ought to do are sometimes two different things.”

City officials have said the way they acted to approve the settlement was not unusual. It’s routine, they told me here (see the side story), for settlements to be discussed in executive session and quickly added to council agendas before the public has been given advance notice.

But the same routine — involving some of the same city officials and council members — raised questions about the city’s open government actions in the past. News Tribune reporter Kris Sherman wrote about the issue of last-minute settlement additions to the council’s meetings three years ago in this story.

Another issue raised by last week’s settlement is whether the agreement with Clear Channel predetermined aspects of a future city ordinance on billboards. Such predetermination of legislation is something that lawyers agree would invalidate the ordinance.

“If we signed a document that called for legally binding legislation, it would be null and void,” City Attorney Elizabeth Pauli agreed. “But we absolutely did not do that.”

Rather, Pauli noted the settlement specifically states the city is “contemplating the enactment of an ordinance” that would allow “digital bulletin billboard signs in exchange for the removal of existing billboard signs and/or the relinquishment of pending relocation permits.”

“No court could enforce that word — `contemplating’ — to mean we are legally binding legislation,” Pauli said.

In fact, the council can decide any way it wants — regardless of what the settlement says — as to what its billboard legislation will say when it takes up an update of its ordinance in the future, Pauli and City Manager Eric Anderson both told me last week. If the council decides in the future to pass an ordinance to ban billboards in the city — including any digital ones referenced in the settlement — then so be it, they said.

But does that make sense? Why would the council go through the motions of approving a legal settlement with Clear Channel only to come back later with an ordinance that undermines that settlement?

Ryan Mello, one of the council members who did speak to me for the record about the settlement, told me last week it’s his understanding that any future ordinance would allow the settlement terms of the Clear Channel deal to occur.

“The terms of the settlement, as you can clearly see in the agreement, clearly would grandfather Clear Channel in with those rights (under a future ordinance),” Mello said. “But at the same time, we got rid of a substantive amount of billboards. They will be going away. We could not see ourselves getting rid of real billboards off of city blocks (and) going away so quickly without this settlement.”

So, taking Mello on the face of his words, the settlement will pre-determine to at least some extent what the city’s eventual billboard legislation must say — by grandfathering in Clear Channel’s rights.

(When I raised this issue to Anderson last week, he said I was wrongly assuming that the current ordinance didn’t already allow for digital billboards, which he contended wasn’t the case. Anderson said no new language to make such an allowance would necessarily need to be added or drafted to any new or amended legislation in the future, because the ordinance doesn’t differentiate between billboards, whether digital or not. So, they’re already allowed, he said. Maybe so — three years ago. But under the existing city ordinance in question, any of Clear Channel’s billboards meeting certain size thresholds were supposed to have been taken down in 2007. That indicates the city, in any new ordinance, would have to include specific language to allow any billboards — digital or otherwise — after 2007.)

Ford said he’s no expert on contract law. But he wonders why the city simply didn’t hinge its settlement with Clear Channel so that it took effect after the city adopted its new billboard legislation, thus avoiding the predetermination issue altogether.

“What I would have done was try to make (the settlement) effective after a proposed ordinance was passed,” Ford said. “What’s the point of having a settlement if (Clear Channel doesn’t) get the ordinance they want passed? If that happens, they’re still going to have a lawsuit against the city.”

Leave a comment Comments → 12
  1. From my inbox!

    – – –

    Thanks for the message. I have been following events in Tacoma, and actually read the Clear Channel lawsuit. You can’t predict what the courts will do, but that lawsuit made the same arguments that have been rejected time and time again, and I’m sorry to hear the city decided to settle. But that’s the strategy of Clear Channel and other big billboard companies, to keep pushing lawsuits until cities cave in and give them what they want. And what they want everywhere are digital billboards, because these are big moneymakers, far more lucrative than conventional billboards. So an important question to ask when billboard companies propose these deals is: How much money did those conventional billboards make, and how much will the digital billboards make? The digital billboards also consume far more energy than conventional billboards, and can cause light trespass if they’re near residential neighborhoods.

    But it sounds like it’s a done deal, unless somebody sues to stop it.

    Dennis Hathaway
    President, Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight
    Los Angeles, CA 90064
    http://www.banbillboardblight.org/

    Mr. Hathaway also sent a very interesting email to my friend Captiveyak

    http://www.exit133.com/5933/the-billboard-compromise-background-data#c026783

  2. stetsonwalker says:

    I assume these signs are on private property, if this is the case the government has no business getting involved at all.

  3. thurber says:

    To 9-inch: Thanks for the information.

    Mello says he’s an enviromentalist, but is he only about buying development rights from farmers and timber companies? Why does Lauren Walker support removal of some billboards elsewhere but wants them concentrated in her district? Who does she represent? Fey, of cource, is the mastermind in breaking the open meetings act before, in the backroom deal to appoint Mello and David Boe to the Council.

    To Attorney General Rob McKenna: Please investigate the Tacoma Council again. It’s a very tight circle of friends and allies that control our government. There’s pattern of secret conduct here that needs to be stopped. We need another AG opinion, even a court ruling, to override Anderson and Pauli.

  4. fatuous says:

    “I assume these signs are on private property, if this is the case the government has no business getting involved at all.”

    Property owners don’t have unlimited rights.

  5. @fatuous. agreed. for instance: zoning. sign regulations are very much the government’s business. otherwise the I-5 corridor would be cluttered with signs like the Emerald Queen Casino’s blight (which are on sovereign reservation land).

  6. stetsonwalker says:

    Signage cuts down on the accident rate, keeps the mind thinking and more alert to surroundings.

  7. SuperSteve says:

    Kudos to Ryan Mello for going on the record with the News Tribune – we need more people like him in public service!

  8. Danielle L Grant Of Las Vegas is A RAPIST says:

    Danielle L Grant 22, of Las Vegas is a RAPIST, she and another man used a date rape drug on Victom at 2900 El Camino apt 170Danielle L Grant sodomized the victim with a plunger, Intestines were hanging out of rectum of victom.She is lite skinned mixed women 4 ‘9 to 4’11 and she drives a black ford Focus, She works as an dental assistant during day.STOP her Please. Victom is too ashamed to go to police, HER LAST PH # 702-685-9588 Danielle L Grant MUST BE STOPED

  9. Does Alcohol Affect Thyroid Medication
    http://www.idnflooring.com/ – lipitor medication
    It is advisable to take Lipitor once in a day either in an empty stomach or after food.
    buy atorvastatin online
    During the intake of Lipitor at regular intervals, if you experience a sort of inexplicable pain in the muscles or unusual tiredness, it would be advisable to explain the physical condition to the physician.
    lipitor drug

  10. Danielle Violette Grant IS A RAPIST-Date Rape says:

    Danielle Grant 23, of Las Vegas is a RAPIST, her DOB Feb 19, 1988 she and another man used a date rape drug on Victim at Sahara Palms Apartments 2900 El Camino ave. apt 170, Danielle L Grant sodomized the victim with a plunger. She is lite skinned 4’6 to 4’7 and she drives a Black Ford Focus, She works as an dental assistant during day. STOP this Rapist before she rapes your son or daughter. Memory just now coming back. Danielle L Grant MUST BE STOPED. She is a drug addict and dealer ( Lortab and Meth,Weed ) sometimes works as a Vegas Escort/Prostitute when she needs money. During summer She Prosititues at casino Pools to meet tourist customers.. If you have information on her criminal activities Please contact the Las Vegas Police Dept. HER DISCRIPTION..New Info ON RAPIST. Current Address Cimarron Apts 8301 W Flamingo Blg Apt# #2043 . Police say with out the KIT after rape not much can be done. Unless her freinds come forward with INFO. She needs To Be STOPED; PS look at her discription. She May be a TRANSVESTITE or Transgendered.

  11. Anti Inflammatory Arthritis Medications http://www.hatsformen.org/ – generic lunesta Eszopiclone is a prescription medication that is better known as Lunesta. cheap eszopiclone

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0