Alison Morrow contacted me after I suggested a more in-depth piece into the entire process.

In addition to the perception of the closed door meetings resulting in poor management practices and loss of opportunities for sportsmen coming out to these meetings, I addressed to Alison, the question of the Tribes using the leverage of permits as coercion to get the State to bend to their will.

I also spoke of the Co-managers banner of "Champions of Conservation" and asked that the tactics of Net schedules vs ESA listed fish in system timing and the whole by-catch scam. (Lowering escapement numbers to increase harvest when even the lower escapement isn't met.) Follow the money if you will!

Hopefully, we will see a little more coverage. But as Tim Hamilton (THFWA)reminded me: The Casino's are huge advertiser money to the stations!

ESB 5964 the Open Government Trainings Act, was passed by the Legislature on March 2014 and the Governor signed it on March 27, 2014 and went into effective July 1, 2014. The bill was introduced at the request of the Washington State Attorney General with bipartisan support.

The Act is designed to foster open government by making open government education a recognized obligation of public service. The Act is also designed to reduce liability by educating agency officials and staff on the laws that govern them, in order to achieve greater compliance with those laws. Thus, the Act is a risk management requirement for public agencies.

The Act provides for open public meetings and records trainings. In sum, the Act is intended to improve trust in government and at the same time help prevent costly lawsuits to government agencies.

http://www.atg.wa.gov/OpenGovernmentTraining.aspx

Might be interesting to see, through a PDR, the specific training WDFW has had in complying with this Act.

Might be interesting to see, through a PDR, the specific training WDFW has had in complying with this Act.

The state attorney general office is a strong advocate for open government and is set up to answer all questions and concerns, along with their websites being a wealth of information.

"Government accountability means that public officials— elected and un-elected— have an obligation to explain their decisions and actions to the citizens. Government accountability is achieved through the use of a variety of mechanisms— political, legal and administrative— designed to prevent corruption and ensure that public officials remain answerable and accessible to the people they serve. In the absence of such mechanisms, corruption may thrive."
— U.S. Department of State

IMO, in past years, the NOF meetings stop short with the last meeting of the process involving the negotiations with state and the tribes.

The last NOF meetings should be regional public meetings just like the start of the process but this time to explain the results of the negotiations and how those decisions were made instead of having to read through the LOAF and then calling WDFW with questions or comments.

Regarding Chair Loomis NWIFC representing the 20 area tribes quote--- “Treaty tribes – as sovereign nations – are not bound by the state’s open public meetings laws.”

Case law states “all Indians born in the United States are now citizens of the United States.” So it is disheartening that the tribal people as co-managers are embracing arrogant contempt of current laws regarding transparency through open meetings and time will tell at the upcoming state F&W commission meeting just how close WDFW is in lock step with their co-cronies regarding NOF clandestine settings.

They are citizens, as you vote, of the United States. WA open meetings laws do not cover meetings in other states, and the Reservations are not under WA law.

An intersting question for a legal mind to ponder is if the Tribes are US citizens but, as Lorraine says, not subject to WA law then why can they vote in WA elections?

The Tribes are taking a stand that they are going into these meetings as a Sovereign Government, and as such, are not required to adhere to Washington State Law. In other words, they have no legal obligation to have the public attend "their" meetings. The question for the courts is, can a State agency ignore the OPMA (open public meeting act) because it is in negotiations with a "sovereign government"?

More on point, is that the Tribes have the State by the nut sack! Because the tribes can get their permits "Fast Tracked" in a matter of weeks, they have nothing to lose in walking out of negotiations at the NOF. Their "test case" was the Coho fishery last season and it went off very well in their favor!

The State (us) on the other hand cannot get permits through NOAA on our own in a time frame that would allow us to fish.

So, the tribes have the trump card! And I suspect this is why the Tribes and WDFW are fighting to keep these meetings closed. Because the State has capitulated so much over to the tribes under threat of them walking out, that they are now afraid to let the public know what is really going on. They (WDFW) are just hoping that the tribes will back off and the WDFW can try and sugar coat everything to make it look like it's all holding hands and singing Kumbaya like the've been doing for years.
Problem is, they tribes have an agenda, and it doesn't include backing off...

Baywolf,
I think you are on track with the question about whether the state can ignore the OPA. In this case I do not think they can. It probably would involve a law suit, but I think the tribe would need to show a compelling reason for the meetings to be closed. Since, in this case, the state is nothing more than a representative of us, and no state secrets are being discussed, and all members are required to negotiate by law, I see no way the Tribes could argue to keep the meetings fully closeted. They might be able to get away with closed circuit meetings to keep out disruptions or other reasonable accommodations, but in my opinion that is the best they could do. The state should follow the tribes suit and try to get an injunction forcing the tribes to negotiate with the closed circuit cameras.

The tribes have been using the same sovereign nation argument to pay off the politicians, claiming they are not bound by campaign financing laws. Again, they may be right .... but I believe the politicians they are paying off are subject to the law. I think the first step in all this process is to get a law passed that limits what a politician can accept. We may need to get an initiative started that forces this issue.

Absolutely concur!

Actually, there already is an initiative in place to challenge the closed door NOF meetings. (See THFWA.Org website for updates)

The hard nut to crack is the States reluctance to challenge the Tribes. Not just in allowing the people of the State into these meetings, but on many issues in our fisheries.

With just a little research, you can see that the Governor (or his staff) is up to his balls deep in meddling with the NOF process on behalf of the Tribes. (could it be because of donations?)

There is also the court of public perception. We need to get the truth out in this arena as well. The tribes always fall back on the position of being "Champions of Conservation". And they do a lot in that regards, but they also over fish and use non-selective methods that take ESA listed fish out of already strained systems.

We (the sportsmen) really need to organize now more than ever and get involved. It's not easy, and may look overwhelming, but if there is any hope in improving the fisheries the burden is on us to do it.

If the State participates in negotiations in BC or Oregon or California (which they do) they are bound by the laws of those jurisdictions, not by WA laws. The "out" in the State/Tribal negotiations is that when the occur on Reservation the governing law is Tribal. So, if the Tribes insist in meeting on Rez it is their rules. If the State aquiecieses (sp?) then they agree that the Tribe's desire for secrecy is necessary to a successful (to someone) outcome.

There are many ways they will try to keep things secret, and keep things going like they have been. As far as their concerned, the sport fishermen are only a source of money!