Forum Home | Politics & Government | Candidates & Elected Officials
City doesn't do anything wrong...still pays out $7500
on 2/22/2010 @ 9:47pm
|The city of Tacoma which rarely misses an opportunity to squander scarce tax resources has just found another way. Just 7 weeks ago the city held a special executive session that they claimed did not violate the Open Meetings requirement. Even the City Attorney backed them up on this. Now they've agreed to pay the News Tribune $7500 to make the issue go away. Isn't this payment an admission that the city did violate the law? If the complaint had no merit why should the taxpayers have to fork over this money?
by jenyum on 2/22/2010 @ 9:52pm
|Litigation is more expensive.|
by fredo on 2/22/2010 @ 10:21pm
|Why would litigation be more expensive for the city? We already have a city attorney. If I decide to sue the city for the same violation will the city pay my attorney $7500 too?
And the larger question...did the city violate the Open Meetings Act? The voters have a right to know.
by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 2/22/2010 @ 10:24pm
|I have the same beef against the city. I'm hoping my check is in the mail.|
by fredo on 2/23/2010 @ 8:16am
|Each person in Tacoma has the right to bring the same action against the city that the News Tribune did.
Here's the potential payout if each person did (assuming each person settled for a mere $7500, some might take the issue to trial rather than settle):
200,000 X $7500= $1,500,000,000
Wow, that's a pretty large potential liability-all to protect some council members from embarrassment..
by NineInchNachos on 2/23/2010 @ 9:16am
|do you have a news story link?|
by Maria on 2/23/2010 @ 12:12pm
by panachronic on 2/24/2010 @ 4:37am
|The problem with these statutes (Open Meetings Act, Public Disclosure Act, etc.) is that violators are allowed to pass the costs along to the taxpayers.
If the laws were changed to make individual offenders personally liable to pay the damages, compliance would increase dramatically.