Monday, October 24, 2011

Scoop! State Auditor Says Sale of MLK, Jr. Building Valid

The State Auditor's office has determined that the sale of the Martin Luther King, Jr. building to First AME church did not violate any laws and there was no conflict of interest.  However, digging deeper, there are some interesting items.

Update:  I got it wrong about Noel Treat being on the selection committee.  The selection committee was made up of Don Kennedy, Ron English, Holly Ferguson and Chanin Kelly-Rae (public member).   Mr. Treat only attended the August 2010 meeting with MGJ at the request of Ron English (and this was right after Mr. Treat was hired).

New Update:  Yoo hoo, Seattle Times?  Are you there?  There is nothing at their website on this story.  I have searched and I found nothing.  What an odd thing (especially since it clears the district).  Maybe they are worried about what this looks like to voters in terms of the School Board incumbents.  

The lobbyist's name is Clifford Traisman (it is unclear to me if he is still the SPS lobbyist).  Michael DeBell was the president of the Board at that time.  Legislators who got involved were Senator Adam Kline, Rep. Frank Chopp, Rep. Sharon Tomiko-Santos, and Rep. Eric Pettigrew.   

There were six questions they considered including issues around:
  • the involvement/influence of former Director of Facilities, Fred Stephens
  • was the appraisal properly conducted 
  • did the sale price meet state law requirements
  • what was the process the district used to determine the winning bidder
  • was the funding from the Department of Commerce for this purchase "a gift of public funds"?
They found no evidence Fred Stephens was involved in the decision-making process or that he exerted any influence on that process to favor any bidder or that he passed on knowledge about the sale to anyone associated with the successful bidder.

The report does say:

The former Executive Director of Facilities stated his supervisor, the former CFOO, asked him to not be involved with anything regarding the sale.  Despite that, he still received emails regarding the sale from District staff, including the Board office staff and the former Superintendent.  He said he also received emails about the sale that were sent to a distribution list of persons interested in District property sales.  We found this distribution list included 154 to 179 separate email addresses, including email addresses for each of the bidders.

You have to wonder why former CFOO, Don Kennedy, did not remove Mr. Stephens from the e-mail list on this particular issue.

The district's posted summary pages of appraisal of the property did meet state law.  From the report:

An appraisal was done in January 2009 and was updated in September 2010.  The January 2009 appraisal showed the property value at $2,565,000.  The summary pages the District posted on its property management website at the time of the request for proposals to purchase the property were taken from that appraisal.  The September 2010 update valued the property at $2,410,000.  

 However, the report states that the Auditor's office does not have the authority to state whether the appraisal was properly conducted but that the district did use a certified appraiser who is licensed in Washington State.

In speaking about the process, the Auditor lays out the entire timeline and reasoning given by the district for their actions.  It is a valuable piece of institutional documentation of an issue.

It shows that the selection committee  - composed of the CFOO, the district's property manager (Ron English at the time), and Deputy General Counsel (Noel Treat at the time) , the Director of Policy and Government Relations (Holly Ferguson) and a member of the public who had been involved with the process (but who is not named here) - had recommended the sale of the property to the Bush School.

However this is what happened:

Between November 6 and November 20, the selection committee members met in the CFOO’s office to discuss the sale.  The citizen member of the selection committee we interviewed stated the CFOO stressed the District needed to take a closer look at "special consideration" because of possible benefits stemming from selling to a community group.  The selection committee member stated the CFOO said he did not want the recommendation to be solely based on money and wanted to look at the proposals again through the lens of "special consideration".  An email dated November 18, 2009, from the Property Manager to the other members of the selection committee states that the Finance Committee asked staff to “go back to the various proposers and get them to modify their proposals.”  He stated the Finance Committee was not dismissing the proposal from the Bush School, but wanted staff to try harder to “get actual community use at the site.”  

So basically, the district seemed to not want to sell to Bush and was trying to get a community group to have a better bid in order to maximize community use.

But then some of our state legislators (not named but I'm pretty sure it was Sharon Tomiko-Santos and a couple of others) got involved.  (bold mine)

On December 11, 2009, the District’s lobbyist in Olympia sent an email to the Superintendent, the Board president, the Director of Policy and Government Relations, the Property Manager, and the CFOO.  The email stated that the lobbyist met with legislators who wanted the property to be used to benefit the community at large.  The lobbyist stated another option would be to hold off on selling the property for another year or two.  The District had concerns about this option because the building had been vacant for two years and that postponing the sale could affect the re-occupancy of the building.  The lobbyist responded by saying, in part, “We cannot go Bush, at least not now.  Also, 4 years, 6 years, what's the diff?"  The Director of Policy and Government Relations stated that this would most likely be cost prohibitive for any community group and wouldn't allow them to meet requirements for  reduced rates.  The lobbyist responded that the City can allow anything it wants, especially if Legislators, the Mayor, City Council and the District all worked together.

I don't know who our lobbyist was at the time but who was he/she working for?   The State legislators or the district?

They went through another round of proposals and both First AME and CCC @MLK group had not qualified for the discount available to groups who demonstrated that more than 50% of the building would be used to support youth education activities.  But

The former Board president stated the Board decided to give the two community groups one last opportunity to submit proposals that meet "special consideration" requirements. 

The report states that between Jan 2010 and May 2010, the process for selling the property came to a halt.  But our Olympia legislators were still working on finding money to allow a community group to buy the property.  The district supported these efforts.

In April 2010, the Legislature appropriated $1.5 million for acquisition of the school property in addition to the $1 million appropriated in the 2008 state capital budget.  The total set aside for the purchase was now $2.5 million.

However, the Legislature did not seem to be wanting to acknowledge that they had done this in order to allow a new round of proposals.  The district was just going to re-open the RFP process as if nothing had changed.  This did not sit well with Ron English and Holly Ferguson (both lawyers).

He recommended that all this information be presented to the Board for their consideration “given (the Legislature’s) failure to follow through and the ambiguity of where we are at.”  The Director of Policy and Government Relations responded to this email saying that she agreed with the Property Manager “100%.”  The lobbyist responded to her saying “what are u talking about?  We got exactly what we wanted.”

Ron English did the following:

He sent an email to the District's lobbyist and the Director of Policy and Government Relations saying that no one has identified any flaws in the RFP process they started in August 2009, yet they are being “told to reopen that process to allow a late bidder in”, and that they need to explain why they are doing this to the other bidders who already submitted proposals.  The lobbyist responded saying that the District Board chair and the Superintendent had said they would be very happy to re-open the RFP
process should the Legislature provide additional funds.  He suggested telling the other bidders that the process is being reopened due to the availability of additional state funding.  The Property Manager responded to this email, but only included the Director of Policy and Government Relations and the former CFOO in the reply, saying that it is “disingenuous” to suggest that the additional funding is “something new and unexpected.”


So they reopened the RFP in June 2010.   One new group, the CADA, a neighborhood group joined the other three bidders.   However:

On June 9, 2010 the CCC@MLK group sent a letter to the District stating it objected to the former Executive Director of Facilities being included on the distribution list for the memorandum, and
Addendum 5.  The group asked that the letter be treated as a protest.
 

The district said the protest was late and had been denied.

In August 2010, the selection committee again convened.  Ron English's recommendation to the Superintendent was to sell to the highest bidder, the Bush School.   This is what Noel Treat says happened as well.   Dr. Goodloe-Johnson rejected that recommendation.  She wanted to sell to First AME Church.  She stated to the Auditor that she does not remember what her recommendation was at that meeting.  

Going along with MGJ, Ron English presented the staff recommendation to the A&F Committee to sell to First AME Church.

The Property Manager told us that he did not read the recommendation out loud because he believed the District should sell the property to the Bush School.  The committee agreed with the staff
recommendation and moved the vote to the full Board.


On October 20, 2010, the Board approved (5-2) a motion to authorize the Superintendent to execute a contract for the sale of the school property to First AME Church. 

The final sentence under the history section:

Although it accepted the lowest bid for the property, the District complied with state law and District policy.

Their recommendation:

We recommend the District establish a process by which its employees can document an official recusal for themselves whenever the possibility of a conflict of interest arises, whether that conflict is in-fact or appearance. 

No kidding.

If you read the entire report, it is difficult to not see that there were people who wanted, well basically, what they wanted.  And, that Dr. Goodloe-Johnson was able to override the entire selection committee because of what she thought best.  That it sounds like Mr. English practically had to hold his nose while he announced the "staff" recommendation to the A&F Committee is not a good sign.

One more in the chain of judgments made by Dr. Goodloe-Johnson that will live on.   I think that all the groups involved were not well-served in the process by the machinations of the state legislators and MGJ.  And, in the end, given how slowly First AME is moving on their programs, that youth are not going to be well-served by this sale and the district (and the public) lost out on valuable dollars this district could have used.

46 comments:

RosieReader said...

Good to read. Thanks for posting.

Anonymous said...

1) Who was on the Audit and Finance Committee when it ultimately decided to agree to the staff recommendation to sell to First AME? I would like their names highlighted.

2) I am very clear that the ONLY board member not culpable in the horrible history of this sale is Smith-Blum who said we should not sell district land and facilities in the dense urban core. (Martin-Morris in re-election campaign materials is trumpeting the fact that he did not vote for this sale, but he simply wanted to sell to the other community group's lowball offer, which also failed to meet the threshold of an acceptable bid until the district and state twisted itself into knots to allow its bid in.)

All in all a very unsavory piece of business by the district and the state. At the top of it all was the previous superintendent offering a shining example of the steamrolling personality that the 4 incumbents allowed to roll over the board for the 3 years of her reign.

-skeptical-

Want to Know More said...

In a addition to the Audit and Finance Committee, what was going on within the Operations Committee?

Anonymous said...

Noel Treat could not have been in the initial selection committee in '09, as he was not an employee of the district yet. During the subsequent re-re-bid, he would have been a new hire.

Mr. Ed

Melissa Westbrook said...

Good point, Mr. Ed. That is true but I believe he did end up being on the committee during the third(?) round.

someone said...

Well - it may not have crossed the threshold into illegality, but it certainly sounds like more than one entity was manipulating the game for their own ends.


Fascinating..troubling..sad, all at the same time.

dj said...

Is there a good article/source for what AME actually is doing with the building? I drive past it every day and so far the answer looks like "not much," so I am curious.

Anonymous said...

What sloppy work by the State Auditor for issuing such a report. It makes me wonder whether they are truly independent. No actual laws were broken but after reading it, do you feel better or worse?

I agree with Melissa that MGJ [and her friends in Olympia] were able to override the entire process to arrive at a pre-determined result. This is exactly what an Auditor should be watching out for: executives overriding procedures and internal controls originally designed to prevent such a thing! Did I hear correctly that the Board has improved oversight and internal controls?

Sloppy work at best! The tone of the report leads me to believe that the Auditors (eg. Carol Ehlinger, Audit Manager) is walking on egg shells! The Auditors didn't have the stomach to call out the obvious, “ugly, ugly, corrupt process” [Quoting Charlie], but instead hid behind listing out factually what transpired and reminds us that they are only obligated to answer the 6 questions even though right in front of them and included in their report something smells fishy!

What a sickening report to how our government agencies, including the State Auditors Office, function.


A friend of Seattle.

dan dempsey said...

I find the SAO work acceptable. It describes what happened in adequate detail. I've been very pleased with the work of the SAO in Seattle Schools over the last several years.

If the voters in Seattle would wake up and dump the four incumbents seeking reelection, SAO Seattle would have less work.

This report details the manipulations that took place.

Those dissatisfied with the SAO work, please describe what Ms. Ehlinger needed to do to satisfy you.

Keep in mind that the SAO has undergone cuts to its budget.

The SAO reports ... the voters need to act.

RosieReader said...

Well, it didn't take long for someone to take a shot at the messenger. I just don't get the attitude best summed up as 'if I don't agree with you you must be sloppy, incompetent, lazy or corrupt.' Thanks for meeting my (low) expectations, "A friend of Seattle."

Charlie Mas said...

Let's be PERFECTLY CLEAR.

This travesty was allowed to happen ONLY because the Board adopted a new policy and procedure for selling property - a policy and procedure that accounted for "public use" of sold district property as if it were money paid to the District.

The Board is responsible for this.

Didn't they see the real story behind that policy change?

mirmac1 said...

I'm surprised the SAO did not fault the method in which information was shared with parties both within and outside the district. Best Practice dictates that, during a competitive procurement (bid or proposal), there should be a firewall of sorts between agency and bidders. All contacts with bidders should go through a designated individual - not randomly to parties who may have an interest in the outcome. This goes back to the whole dysfunction in the Procurement Office and Ron English. The SAO (perhaps not Ehlinger's dept?) raised this very same issue with Metro (now KC) and the Port.

Interestingly, all the MLK sales docs and other property sale docs are OFF the SPS Property Mgmt webpage.

Anonymous said...

@RosieReader - Wow! Who is shooting the messenger? Ironic. I believe you are making a wrong assumption. I actually agree with the report of the Auditor's findings but find it lacking. What I don't agree with, in answer to Dan's request, is that in their report, they include items that seems like collusion, not very transparent, meddling by Olympia, lobbyist (hmm...are districts allowed to do that?), executives overriding procedures to arrive at a result and the Auditor's don't address these items.

I agree with Charlie that the Board is responsible for this; however, the Auditor's report clearly mentions others who were involved: Legislators, Lobbyist, MGJ, Ron English for not speaking up.

I sense from this blog that other players, that the auditor's themselves mentioned but ignores, aren't important because the current aganda is to replace the Board. Sounds fishy like the report itself and how ironic that this blog calls for change when it is guilty of the same things.


A friend of Seattle

Anonymous said...

Thank you Mirmac1!

A friend of Seattle

Charlie Mas said...

There's no doubt that the legislators, the lobbyist, the former superintendent, the former CFOO, and Mr. English are also responsible, but only the Board is entrusted with the duty to protect the interests of the community in this transaction.

Furthermore, the Board meekly rubber-stamped the policy change without any sign of interest or concern about the implications for the MLK sale.

How is it - any reasonable person might ask - that this policy revision comes so quickly before the Board when other policy revisions are mired in inaction?

Did the Board have no qualms about the sharing of bid information among the bidders?

Did the Board have no qualms about the second bid process after the first bid process yielded an unwanted result?

Did the Board have no qualms about the start and stop of the bid process - a start and stop that was clearly designed to serve the interests of one bidder against the interests of everyone else?

Finally, did the Board never wonder how the 40-year covenants would be enforced?

Chris S. said...

Charlie - can you point me to the board meeting where this policy was adopted? (approximate date range even would help.) I am working on a flyer to actually do some WORK on this election.

And friend of Seattle, very intriguing but can't grok who involved in wrongdoing "this blog" would not be interested in.

Without knowing any of the details it seems likely that Dan did not ask the right questions to force full disclosure of the right things but I do not believe this was intentional. It is very hard to know what to ask if you are not a bureaucrat or a lawyer, which Dan is not. (yet, haha)

mirmac1 said...

You're right Chris in noting that, without insider status, it's hard to know how to parse a question just so.

I have submitted complaints to the SAO, provided disclosed records and cited RCW and STILL couldn't get a finding.

Part of the reason these folks can't get fingered is that, here we are, one year after designation of an Ethics Officer and there's is still a totally wimpy Ethics Policy. Too much wiggle room.

Melissa Westbrook said...

DJ, check the district's press release. It does give info but I'm not sure I'm seeing much in the way of programming.

Sahila said...

With this report and its exemplifying yet another (expensive and integrity-challenged) problem with the current Board, it might be a good point in time to remind people that if Seattle-ites want Truth, Trust and Transparency in this District, it's time to vote in the School Board Challengers KATE MARTIN, MARTY MCLAREN, MICHELLE BUETOW & SHARON PEASLEE

joanna said...

Thank you for this report. Has anyone asked what Hamlin Robinson was promised to drop out of the process? While Kay Smith-Blum did speak up for not selling schools, this was her first important opportunity to do more. Don't let her completely off the hook. She was just elected and invited to the work session where the final recommendation was prepared for the Board vote. She was specially invited since the school was in her area, and she agreed to allow the recommendation to go forward and voted for at the meeting. Kay often asks important questions, but you won't be supporting her in continuing to do so if you ignore her participation here.

Anonymous said...

It's interesting that depending on how you read the report, Ron English is either a hero or a person who isn't strong enough to speak his mind especially when he disagrees with his superivors. Doesn't he now hold the position as General Counsel? If he is a person who is not strong enough to speak his mind, the District is in trouble.

A friend of Seattle

FedMomof2 said...

Ok, so a bit off thread, but to the point of voting in the right school board, I thought readers might be interested in this article from the Nation entitled "Big Money, Bad Media, Secret Agendas: Welcome to America's Wildest School Board Race."

The story's about the school board race in Denver, but makes you wonder about where we are going to end up in Seattle.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/164122/big-money-bad-media-secret-agendas-welcome-americas-wildest-school-board-race

FedMomof2

mirmac1 said...

Geez, was Ron English "just following orders" in Pottergate too? If you ever met the dude, he's no pushover. Frankly I find most of what he says disingenuous, to say the least.

Remember the "emergency" CSHS elevator change order that didn't comply with statutory deadlines. He called it "a small noncompliance".

Po3 said...

I have a couple of questions. What programs are currently in the MLK Building?

And do we need the space for capacity?

Anonymous said...

@Po3, MLK is no longer owned by the District. It's been reported that First AME Church, who now owns the property, has made some improvements to the property and makes the property available to the community daily.

A friend of Seattle

Anonymous said...

@Po3, MLK is no longer owned by the District. It's been reported that First AME Church, who now owns the property, has made some improvements to the property and makes the property available to the community daily.

A friend of Seattle

joanna said...

Really all those living in the 37ths where schools were closed and MLK was sold at a record pace of action for any closed school in the history of this District. It still was a usable school with a larger site than either Madrona or Montlake and in an area with homes and kids.

Yes, the Board is ultimately responsible and certainly should have been able to see logic beyond the Superintendent. However, this story clearly demonstrates that State Representatives and City Council members, mayors pay attention to these issues. The next time you need help and any of these elected representatives tell you that they don't get involved in school issues and they aren't school board members, let them know you expect help, and that you know that they can influence decisions. What is really sad here is how involved they were willing to get to sell a school to AME and how little involvement they have shown in saving schools here from closure and ensuring that we have great schools that anyone would want to attend with walkable assignment areas. Questions should be asked in the next round of elections. Are we getting the representation we deserve? Could we get better representation?

Po3 said...

I know the district doesn't own the property. I am just wondering how the property is being used at the moment.

And if we need sq. footage in that neighborhood to help with capacity issues?

Anonymous said...

Joanna - Yes! You are right!

-skeptical-

Chris S. said...

Sales policy revision March 2008
http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Policies/Board/h/H02.01.pdf?sessionid=c304762735cf99086d73b462750bae46

Definitely the work of the class of '07

dan dempsey said...

Nice Link from Chris S.

March 26, 2008 Policy H02.01

On July 6, 2010 the auditor's report wrote about putting funds at risk.....

This looks like a policy to nearly give valuable assets away with sales below even bargain basement prices.

The class of 2007 (Carr, Sundquist, Maier, Martin-Morris) had only been in office about 5 months at the time of this approval.

Head nodding to everything MGJ was well underway.

Charlie Mas said...

The District regards the MLK property as too small to be of cost-effective use as a school.

Per the State Auditor's report:

"In 2008 the Board approved a change to District procedure related to property sales in an effort to obtain a higher return. The former Board President said the Board asked staff to explore the sale of surplus schools to benefit the District's mission that would not require the District to accept the highest dollar amount but that still would meet the 90 percent requirement in state law. He stated this was an effort to keep the buildings for community use, rather than turned into private-use facilities."

The Board adopted a revised board Procedure (H02.01) at their meeting of March 26, 2008. The motion passed unanimously (as did every other motion considered that evening).

At the time, the Board consisted of: Cheryl Chow (President), Michael DeBell (Vice-President), Steve Sundquist, Peter Maier, Sherry Carr, Harium Martin-Morris, and Mary Bass.

The revised policy pre-dated the RFP for MLK by a year and was used four times (for the sale of University Heights, part of Fauntleroy, Allen, and the Queen Anne Gym) before it was used for MLK.

For the record, I think the District got cheated on all of those other deals as well.

The District should not be subsidizing the community use of old school buildings. The District should not be subsidizing ANYTHING. They can't afford it.

someone said...

Mr. Traisman's firm is indeed still the lobbyist for SPS, at least according to the PDC database - he's also lobbyist for several environmental groups
including Washington Environmental Council and Washington Environmental Council. Prior to that he was Dir. of Intergovernmental Relations for City of Seattle. He was also the legislative assistant to Seattle Councilmember Martha Choe among other things.

someone said...

ack - that should have read and Washington Conservation Voters - one of those days..

Anonymous said...

I want to know if any of the recipients of Potter's pot of money turned around and made donations to these state reps, thus buying off their help in turning over the property to the church. The same SPS players seems to be involved in both scandals.

jaded

rugles said...

How is it that the label "bullshit" wasn't one of the labels for this post?

seattle citizen said...

jaded,
I have the same feeling as you, that there might surely be connections betwen Pottergate players and the First AME. Both of these two stories "broke" at the same time a few months ago, and it did seem that there were connections.

Michael H said...

Seattle Times article here: Times Article

dan dempsey said...

Hey..... So where is the Seattle Times article on the policy change that facilitated the "near give away" of assets?

........MLK to AME paid for by State Taxpayers and Seattle Taxpayers .... coupled to we have a budget shortfall at both the State and Seattle levels.

With decision-making like MLK => AME ... no wonder there is a financial crunch ... Recession? not a problem lets give away assets and ask for a levy passage.

dan dempsey said...

Michael H,

thanks I needed that.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Well this from the Times article is confusing:

"DeBell, in an interview Monday, said the school was the last of five to be converted to community centers under what he described as a successful program using state and city funding."

Uh, is it a community center? Just because there is some community use does not make it a community center. I think a community center is one the COMMUNITY controls.

Guichon said...

@mirmac1: "I'm surprised the SAO did not fault the method in which information was shared with parties both within and outside the district. Best Practice dictates that, during a competitive procurement (bid or proposal), there should be a firewall of sorts between agency and bidders. All contacts with bidders should go through a designated individual - not randomly to parties who may have an interest in the outcome."

What specific best practice are you referring to? can you give a reference to some sort of manual or guide? Did you give this information to the auditor's when you submitted your questions about MLK? If you actually read the report it tells you what their specific focus was - not what you THINK it should have been, but what it was, based on what they describe as citizen "hotlines." In the first paragraph it even states that they are limited in what they can look at: "While our Office does not have the authority to reverse a real estate sale as requested by two citizens who contacted us, we do have the authority to examine circumstances surrounding the sale of public property and to determine whether the sale complies with state law." Also, "State law and District policy give the School Board the authority to decide to whom it will sell its property,...." So if state law doesn't preclude this type of activity and board policy (which is like law for this district)allows it, how can they legally say otherwise??

Do you really think they would list out the "circumstances surrounding the sale" and implicate legislators if they were whitewashing something? Instead, wouldn't they just say "nothing to see here, move along," and leave it at that? Their reports don't usually editorialize, and this time they are saying that some big-wigs in Olympia were meddling.

Oh, and the report also makes clear that your evil-nemisis (Ron English) actually wanted to withhold the bids but couldn't since their is no exception to the public records law that would have allowed them to withhold the bids (according to the report). Would you rather the district have withheld the bids and then get sued for not releasing the documents? It looks like that CCC group, not AME, wanted to have an advantage over everyone else.

mirmac1 said...

Guichon,

What makes you think I submitted this complaint?

West Point and Renton Treatment Plants Performance Audit

Port of Seattle Performance Audit

Both audits speak to the importance of separating procurement from other agency administrative functions.

As to the Dark Lord…:

In connection with the public bidding process, local governments often obtain information which bidders would not voluntarily divulge to their competitors. Such information may be exempt, if the “public loss” factor can be met. In any event, it would be wise to promptly notify a bidder if the city receives a request for such records.

Public Records Act for Washington Cities, Counties and Special Purpose Districts

If a city or county intends to rebid a public works project after all bids have been opened and rejected, must the previously rejected bid documents be disclosed in response to a request for public disclosure?
Yes. There is no exception to public disclosure that would exempt the bid documents from disclosure (except for proprietary information that might qualify under RCW 42.56.270).

Any more questions?

mirmac1 said...

Guichon,

What makes you think I submitted this complaint?

West Point and Renton Treatment Plants Performance Audit

Port of Seattle Performance Audit

Both audits speak to the importance of separating procurement from other agency administrative functions.

mirmac1 said...

As to the Dark Lord…:

In connection with the public bidding process, local governments often obtain information which bidders would not voluntarily divulge to their competitors. Such information may be exempt, if the “public loss” factor can be met. In any event, it would be wise to promptly notify a bidder if the city receives a request
for such records.

Public Records Act for Washington Cities, Counties and Special Purpose Districts

If a city or county intends to rebid a public works project after all bids have been opened and rejected, must the previously rejected bid documents be disclosed in response to a request for public disclosure?
Yes. There is no exception to public disclosure that would exempt the bid documents from disclosure (except for proprietary information that might qualify under RCW 42.56.270).

Any more questions, Guichon?

Flat for rent Aberdeen said...

I agree with Melissa that MGJ [and her friends in Olympia] were able to override the entire process to arrive at a pre-determined result. This is exactly what an Auditor should be watching out for: executives overriding procedures and internal controls originally designed to prevent such a thing! Did I hear correctly that the Board has improved oversight