East Washingtonian - Your Hometown News Source

POMEROY–Eric Hood of Langley, Wash., an individual with an extensive history of legally exploiting the Open Public Records Act (RCW 42.56) in Washington State by filing public records requests and subsequently suing governmental agencies for alleged non-compliance, has filed a request for public records from Garfield County, the East Washingtonian (EW) has learned. Hood carbon copied the East Washingtonian on his correspondence with Garfield County Auditor McKenzie Lueck and Prosecuting Attorney Matt Newberg.

Hood made a request from Lueck by email on May 27, 2022 for all records pertaining to the recent state audit, according to the email received by the EW. It said: "I understand that your organization was recently audited by the state auditor and a report was published," wrote Hood in his first email request to Lueck. "May I have all records it got from the auditor and all records of its response to the audit or to the audit report, including any changes to policy or practices? Please provide records electronically by email or file share. Eric Hood."

In response to this request, Pros. Newberg, on June 3, 2022, emailed Hood to specify the exact records, policy changes and practices being sought. In that particular correspondence, the ending was possibly deleted or cut off, according to the email received by the EW.

Hood's rendition of his conversation was emailed in this manner to the EW: "MY RESPONSES ARE IN CAPS.

Could you please elaborate as to which audit you are referring? I AM INQUIRING ABOUT THE MOST RECENTLY COMPLETED STATE AUDIT OF THE COUNTY.

1) all records it got from the auditor. Please clarify the records you are seeking. I'M NOT SURE HOW I CAN CLARIFY. ARE YOU SOMEHOW UNFAMILIAR WITH THE COMMON MEANINGS OF ANY OF THE WORDS I USED? IF SO PLEASE CONSULT A DICTIONARY OR ASK ME A CLARIFYING QUESTION.

2) all records of its response to the audit or to the audit report, including any changes to policy or practices. Please clarify the records you are seeking. I'M NOT SURE HOW I CAN CLARIFY. ARE YOU SOMEHOW UNFAMILIAR WITH THE COMMON MEANINGS OF ANY OF THE WORDS I USED? IF SO PLEASE CONSULT A DICTIONARY OR ASK ME A CLARIFYING QUESTION.

ERIC HOOD"

Newberg reported that more than one audit has been located in his email on June 6, 2022 to Hood, to please "if you are familiar with the name, title, or other distinguishing factor of the audit, please let them know so we can get you the documents you are seeking."

Hood was apparently astonished that there may be more than one audit report, then stated if reported simultaneously, then his request applies to them.

Once this was determined, Newberg emailed Hood several links for the Garfield County Financial Statements and Federal Single Audit Report for period January 1, 2019–December 31, 2020; and Accountability Audit for Garfield County for the period January 1, 2019–December 31, 2020.

Hood responded on June 10, 2022, with an elaborate monologue on his request: "Mr. Newberg,

With regard to the audits and audit reports you referenced, I request "All records it [the county] got from the auditor". That means what it says and I don't know how to say it more clearly. By analogy, "all records I got from Mr. Newberg" would mean the emails you have thus far sent to me. I don't know how you were able to interpret "All records it [the county] got from the auditor" to mean "all records transferred to the State Auditor's Office from the Garfield County Auditor regarding the two identified audits.

'[a]ll records of its response to the audit or to the audit report, including any changes to policy or practices?' I am interpreting this as "all documents transferred from the Garfield County Auditor to the State Auditor in response to the State Auditor's Audit Reports (as identified above), specifically including documents provided to the State Auditor referencing the County's anticipated changes in policy or practices as identified within the Audit Report(s)."

Your narrowed interpretation would exclude the County's response to the audits, which are not identical to the reports.

Eric"

Newberg thanked Hood for clarifying the word "it" as meaning all records transferred to the Garfield County Auditor's office from the State Auditor regarding the two identified audits. He again sent the links for the Garfield County Financial Statements and Federal Single Audit Report...January 1, 2019–December 31, 2020; and the Accountability Audit for Garfield County...January 1, 2019–December 31, 2020.

Hood then addressed the Garfield County Commissioners in an email to Newberg on June 11, 2022, when he stated "Your attorney's substitution of the word "transferred" limits the common dictionary meaning of the words "got" and "response", especially in the context of the words "all" and "any." For example, his interpretation suggests that the county "transferred" all records of its response to the audit or audit report to the auditor's office. If, however, the county also has records of any response to the audit or to the audit report that it did not "transfer" to the auditor, then those records should be disclosed. See definitions of "all" and "any.

"Please note that the county "can only seek a clarification when the request is objectively 'unclear.' Seeking a 'clarification' of an objectively clear request delays access to public records." WAC 44-14-04003.

"In short, Mr. Newberg's interpretation is not correct because it is contrary to the literal meaning of my plainly worded request. I again refer you and him to the common dictionary definitions of the words used in my request and quit delaying my access, at taxpayer expense, to county records of obvious public importance.

Eric Hood"

In Newberg's most recent email on June 17, 2022, he once again provided links for Hood to access financial and accountability reports, and began to gather responsive records, stating the County will send records in installments. He then asked Hood to acknowledge and confirm the scope of his request "to ensure all records sought are produced along with records related to the County's response to said audit report(s)..."

Hood responded with a scathing rebuttal accusing the prosecutor of narrowing his request. "Mr. Newberg,

"You continue to try to narrow my request. For example, my request is directed to the entire county, but you interpret it as directed only to the county auditor.

"My clear request speaks for itself. I again refer you to the common dictionary meanings of the words used in my request.

"Eric Hood"

Hood has a history of requesting records from governmental agencies such as municipalities, hospital districts, school districts, counties and others to ultimately file lawsuits against them for their alleged failure to provide the requested records, according to published reports in a number of Washington state community newspapers, including the Port Townsend Leader, San Juan Islander, the Everett Herald and the South Whidbey Record. Typically, governmental entities settle out of court to avoid the high cost of litigation. News reports indicate Hood has collected about $1 million through Public Records Act lawsuits.

In Columbia County, Prosecuting Attorney C. Dale Slack, with County Commissioners' agreement, is pursuing litigation instead of settling. Slack is taking a stand for Columbia County.

Hood filed a complaint against Columbia County on January 10, 2020, alleging that on January 19, 2019, the response to his public records request was not in compliance, therefore a breach of state law. He did not specify a dollar amount for damages. (March 24, 2022, Dayton Chronicle, "County fighting public records requestor").

It is within Hood's legal right to request public records and file a lawsuit alleging noncompliance.