July 18, 2011 E.

Susan Meyer Chief Executive Officer Spokane Transit Authority 1230 West Boone Avenue Spokane, WA 99201 smeyer@spokanetransit.com cc: smillbank@spokanetransit.com cc: oohmediallc@yahoo.com 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 to allowthe 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 First Amendment 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. STA5 records, including any correspondence withthe Ad Agent,are
1

On 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 to UCoRs 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/aboutsta/view/advertising/ (stating that Spokane Transit contracts with an external vendor for the advertising on the sides and inside of buses.) 5 The Public Records Act applies to any agency, which it defines to include every . . .municipal corporation. RCW 42.56.010(1).

therefore subject to the requirements of theWashington Public Records Act (the Public Records Act)(RCW 42.56 et seq.) to provide copies of public records6 upon 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 or other 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 (such advertisements hereinafter referred to as Transit Advertisements);7 3. All communications between or among the STA, the Ad Agent and any other party relating to the Refusal Decision or to any other decision made to refuse to accept any Transit Advertisements within the last 2 years; and 4. All contracts between the STA and Ad Agent. You are required by the Public Records Act8 to make immediate9 delivery by e-mail or postal mail of copies of all of the Requested Documents pursuant to this request to me at the following address: William Burgess Appignani Humanist Legal Center American 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 as any 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 or characteristics. 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 of general 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 narrowly construed 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 promptly by agencies, meaning within five business days of receiving a public record request. If a governmental agency fails to respond to 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).

Or via e-mail to bburgess@americanhumanist.org Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have in response to this request or if you would like to discuss means to remedy the violation of UCoRs First Amendment rights short of litigation at (202) 238-9088 or bburgess@americanhumanist.org. Sincerely,

William J. Burgess Appignani Humanist Legal Center American Humanist Association