Two Public Records Request on Jim Jacks Mysterious Quitting Rebuffed

by lewwaters

UPDATE Nov 3, 2017: Finally the rumors have been confirmed, almost seven years later

As is well known, Democrat representative for Washington State 49th legislative district abruptly quit march 25, 2011, giving no reason and saying only it was for “personal family reasons he did not want discussed publicly.” Pressing for more information on the Columbian website elicited rebuffs from Columbian editor, Lou Brancaccio, here and here.

Lou said in his Saturday column last week that they are seeking answers too, many commenters disbelieving that.

Eric Smith with Washington State Wire has up an article now, Mum’s the Word on the Jim Jacks Mystery  Records Requests Rebuffed – Strict Public Records Rules Don’t Apply to Legislature.

Eric lets us know that there have been two requests submitted for records that may clear up the mysterious and speculative sudden quitting in the middle of a legislative session. One by Washington State Wire and the other by Austin Jenkins of National Public Radio who publicly posted his request in a blog site post, A Lack Of Transparency Surrounding Jim Jacks Sudden Resignation.

Jenkins says his rejection of a records request said, “Your request makes assumptions about both the existence of records and our ability to provide them. Without commenting on the existence of any such records, I should point out that this request encompasses records which are not public records as defined by state law.”

In pointing out the disparity between handling a case involving Republican State Senator Pam Roach last year, Jenkins reminds all that “Jacks was an elected official, he was paid by the taxpayers and his departure mid-session suggests there’s more to the story,” much as I have since Jacks abruptly quitting.

Eric Smith informs us that “Washington has a broad public records law that allows reporters and other citizens to gather information about issues of public interest. State law requires public agencies to disclose all records ‘relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function’.”

He also informs us that the legislature “wrote different rules for themselves,” and “the law defines public records as those regarding the legal functions of the House and Senate, their finances and other official matters. It also includes committee correspondence, testimony and transcripts,” where the legislature is concerned.

The double standard is once again glaring. Not only has the Columbian shown a different standard in their handling of this and past scandals, but now the legislature itself, under a Democrat majority still imposes that same double standard.

In the end, we constituents in the 49th are slighted and the cover-up continues.

Move along, nothing to see here. Jacks is a Democrat after all.

5 Comments to “Two Public Records Request on Jim Jacks Mysterious Quitting Rebuffed”

  1. And the clamp down continuuuuuues.

    Like

  2. Obsess much? Since when can’t someone quit a job suddenly without explanation? Perhaps he had a gay affair. Oh wait, that can’t be. He’s not a Republican.

    As you said, move on, nothing to see here. Because nobody cares.

    Like

  3. What part of “Public Elected Official” is misunderstood, Terry?

    You display the prime attitude that has our country in such a dire condition, not wanting to hold elected officials accountable, unless of course, they’re Republican.

    And no, this is not going to be dropped. I’m in the 49th and whether I supported him or not, he asked to be the voice for the 49th and walked away.

    I’ll leave you with one thought, that shows your sides hypocrisy in this.

    Sarah Palin!

    Like

  4. I guess we are not supposed to notice, Kelly.

    I guess they figure wrong, too.

    Like

  5. For those, like Terry, who apparently don’t mind being lied to, if nothing else, by omission; concerning the misconduct of elected officials on either side of the aisle, feel free to take your own advice:

    “move on, nothing to see here. Because nobody cares.”

    But for those of us who do care… care about misfeasance or malfeasance in office, care about the obvious double standard, care about blatant cover up… we will do what we will do.

    And you won’t mind awfully, will you, Terry? THERE’S a good chap (?)

    Like

%d bloggers like this: