I recently called the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF) and discussed Kirkland’s April 7 annexation public hearing process with their general counsel. He was the attorney that wrote to the City of Seattle (Seattle Times, April 8) informing them they were in violation of the Open Public Meetings Act with their closed door budget meetings. Assistant Attorney General Timothy D. Ford from the State’s Attorney General also expressed his concerns and together they stopped what Seattle was doing.

I advised the foundation the City of Kirkland possibly violated the OPMA, explained the circumstances, and asked if the EFF would do for me what they did in Seattle. I had already sent him an e-mail, but he said he had not received it. After about a 20-minute conversation, he thought Kirkland’s public hearing fell into what he called “a gray area” and possibly was not a violation of the OPMA, so he would not send Kirkland a letter. If I wanted to pursue the matter, I would have to hire an attorney. He also advised me he thought Ford of the AG’s office would feel the same way but might send a letter admonishing the City for the way it conducted the hearing. Ford has not returned my call.

I can only speculate why they are they leaving it up to me to pursue the matter? Was it because Seattle’s complaint was initiated by one of their Councilmembers followed by City Attorney Tom Carr, was Seattle’s closed door meetings easier to resolve, and was Kirkland’s possible violation not significant enough to warrant spending their time? I don’t want to spend a lot of my money hiring attorneys find out what’s black and white. Legal gray areas are expensive.

The Council may or may not be guilty in a court of law, but they are in the eyes of the citizens of Kirkland. If I’m forced to expose their lies, I will. I hope to inform the public of why five Councilmembers voted the way they did. It has to do with power and control by them at the expense of the citizens of Kirkland.

I will not linger on how they mishandled the hearing. However, one big question remains: How can they make an informed decision if information is not available to them to consider?

Robert L. Style, Kirkland