Editor’s note: The Enterprise received a response from Shoreline Mayor Robert Ransom following a Sept. 21 editorial about the Sept. 14 settlement of a lawsuit alleging violations of the state’s Open Meetings Act. The letter was not printed at the time because The Enterprise does not publish letters from candidates during an election cycle and Ransom was a candidate. The following letter was received by The Enterprise on Sept. 21.
As one of the defendants and the current mayor referred to by many individuals and your editorial, I would like to respond as to what my position is.
You appear to have assumed, as did several public members, that because the four defendants at different times signed a letter asking for legal counsel, then faxed it to our insurance authority requesting that legal counsel be assigned, we violated the Open Public Meetings Act. In fact, all four allegations of violations of OPMA were submitted by the plaintiffs to the trial judge for summary judgement alleging the facts in the case were clear and convincing. The parties involved had filed written declarations as to the underlying events. In June 2007, the trial judge found there was no clear and convincing evidence on the issues and the accounts of this case were materially different. Your editorial alleged “the evidence … is damning” is at odds with the trial judge’s findings on summary judgement.
As one of the defendants, I would point out that we had outside legal counsel advising us throughout the process. There is a state Supreme Court case relating to the City of Tacoma City Council that found that if the City Council sought legal counsel and did what they were told, even if told wrong, they can not be found individually responsible. This was the defendants’ guiding principle.
Only a trial judge can decide if there are reasons the Supreme Court should not be followed on a violation that is a $100 civil fine similar to driving without one’s seatbelt on.
Please also note that the defense costs of this suit were driven up by the extensive discovery initiated by the plaintiffs. The fact they allege their legal expenses were $250,000 but were willing to settle for $159,000 in legal fees with no admission of guilt or payment by the defendants might suggest they were afraid if they went to trial they could end up with no legal fees. Please note the defendants wanted a trial which will not happen now that plaintiffs have dismissed their suit. Nothing has been revealed, despite your editorial declaration to the contrary.
Robert L. Ransom
Shoreline Mayor
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
