FOIA Request Letter Re UCoR Ads on Spokane Buses

download FOIA Request Letter Re UCoR Ads on Spokane Buses

of 3

Transcript of FOIA Request Letter Re UCoR Ads on Spokane Buses

  • 8/6/2019 FOIA Request Letter Re UCoR Ads on Spokane Buses

    1/3

    July 18, 2011

    E. Susan Meyer

    Chief Executive OfficerSpokane Transit Authority

    1230 West Boone AvenueSpokane, WA 99201

    [email protected]: [email protected]

    cc: [email protected]

    Re: Washington Public Records Act Request Regardingthe Refusal to Permit

    United Coalition of Reasons Advertisements on STABuses

    I am writing regarding the decision (the Refusal Decision) of the Spokane Transit

    Authoritys (STA) advertising agent, ooh Media Spokane (the Ad Agent), to refuse toallowthe United Coalition of Reason (UCoR)to run an advertisement (the Advertisement) on

    the STAspublic buses.1

    I have reason to believe that the Refusal Decision violated the FirstAmendment to the United States Constitution, which protects freedom of speech in a public

    forum such as the advertising space on public transit and forbids restrictions on speech deemed

    controversial.2

    As you know, STA is a municipal corporation of the State of Washington.3STA has

    contracted4

    withthe Ad Agentto act as its agent in handling the business of advertising on its public transit vehicles. STA

    5records, including any correspondence withthe Ad Agent,are

    1On July 11, 2011, UCoR was notified that STA approved the Advertisement. Later that day, UCoR was informed

    that the Ad Agent had subsequently decided to refuse to run the Advertisement in an e-mail from Ted Carroll toUCoRs media broker. The e-mail stated in part that [i]t has come to my attention that our company has a seperate

    [sic] policy in place to avoid taking certain types of creative that could be harmful or offensive. This creative

    unfortunately can't be accepted by ooh Media.2 See generally Christs Bride Ministries v. SEPTA, 148 F 3d 242 (3rd Cir. 1998),National Abortion Federation v.

    MARTA, 112 F Supp. 2d 1320 (N.D. Ga. 2000), New York Magazine v. MTA, 136 F 3d 123 (2nd

    Cir. 1998),Coalition for Abortion Rights and Against Sterilization Abuse v. NFTA, 584 F. Supp. 985 (W.D.N.Y. 1984),

    Penthouse Intl Ltd. V. Koch, 599 F. Supp. 1338 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) and United Food & Commercial Workers Union

    v. SORTA, 163 F 3d 341 (6th Cir. 1998).3

    See RCW 36.57A.4 According to STAs website, this is a contractual relationship: http://www.spokanetransit.com/about-

    sta/view/advertising/ (stating that Spokane Transit contracts with an external vendor for the advertising on the

    sides and inside of buses.)5The Public Records Act applies to any agency, which it defines to include every . . .municipal corporation .

    RCW 42.56.010(1).

  • 8/6/2019 FOIA Request Letter Re UCoR Ads on Spokane Buses

    2/3

    therefore subject to the requirements of theWashington Public Records Act (the Public RecordsAct)(RCW 42.56 et seq.) to provide copies of public records

    6upon request.

    Pursuant to the Public Records Act, we hereby request copies (in electronic form if

    possible) of the following documents (the Requested Documents), whether currently in the

    possession of the STA, the Ad Agent or any other party:

    1. All documents relating to the Refusal Decision;2. All documents relating to the policy or policies (official or unofficial, written or

    unwritten) of the STA and/or the Ad Agent regarding the types of advertisements orother messages accepted or rejected by the STA (or the Ad Agent on its behalf as its

    agent) for display on or in the STAs transit vehicles, stations or other property (suchadvertisements hereinafter referred to as Transit Advertisements);7

    3. All communications between or among the STA, the Ad Agent and any other partyrelating to the Refusal Decision or to any other decision made to refuse to accept anyTransit Advertisements within the last 2 years; and

    4. All contracts between the STA and Ad Agent.You are required by the Public Records Act

    8to make immediate

    9delivery by e-mail or

    postal mail of copies of all of the Requested Documents pursuant to this request to me at thefollowing address:

    William Burgess

    Appignani Humanist Legal CenterAmerican Humanist Association

    1777 T Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20009

    6The documents requested hereby are public records under the Public Records Act, which defines public records asany writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental

    or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form orcharacteristics. Writings include every . . . means of recording any form of communication, such as e-mail.RCW

    42.56.010.7 In fact, pursuant to RCW 42.56.040,STAhas a duty to publish procedures, including [s]tatements of the

    general course and method by which its operations are channeled and determined, including the nature and

    requirements of all formal and informal procedures available and statements of general policy or interpretations ofgeneral applicability formulated and adopted by the agency.8 Washingtons public disclosure act requires every governmental agency to disclose any public record upon request,

    unless the record falls within certain specific exemptions. Prison Legal News, Inc. v. Department of Corrections,

    115 P.3d 316(2005). Pursuant to RCW 42.56.030, the Act shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowlyconstrued to promote this public policy and to assure that the public interest will be fully protected.9

    Pursuant to RCW 42.56.520, [r]esponses to requests for public records shall be made promptlyby agencies,

    meaning within five business days of receiving a public record request. If a governmental agency fails to respondto a request for public record as provided in Public Records Act, it violates the Act, and the individual requesting the

    public record is entitled to a statutory penalty. Smith v. OkanoganCo., 994 P.2d 857(2000).

  • 8/6/2019 FOIA Request Letter Re UCoR Ads on Spokane Buses

    3/3

    Or via e-mail to [email protected]

    Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have in response to this requestor if you would like to discuss means to remedy the violation of UCoRs First Amendment rights

    short of litigation at (202) 238-9088 or [email protected].

    Sincerely,

    William J. BurgessAppignani Humanist Legal Center

    American Humanist Association