Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enforcement Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PDC refers enforcement case involving online election material back to staff, asks AG help to enforce subpoena
Summary
The Washington State Public Disclosure Commission voted to return an enforcement matter involving Miss Riggers to staff with instructions to work with the attorney general to seek a court order enforcing an interview subpoena, while leaving redactions in place on staff materials.
The Washington State Public Disclosure Commission on June 25 directed staff to pursue judicial enforcement in a contentious case involving a website posting about an election and repeated requests from the subject, identified in staff filings as Miss Riggers, to redact personal information.
Chair Jay Leach opened the discussion of PDC enforcement case 15842 by describing how staff had been unable to obtain clarity on who had asked Miss Riggers to perform the website postings and noting that she had filed a motion seeking redactions, asserted due‑process concerns and threatened litigation. Staff counsel explained the commission’s options: hold the enforcement hearing, dismiss the matter, or work with the attorney general to obtain a court order to compel testimony and enforce an interview subpoena.
Susie Giles Klein, appearing for agency counsel, confirmed staff had authority under the Administrative Procedures Act to seek judicial enforcement of subpoenas and that staff could pursue that option with assistance from the attorney general’s office. Executive Director Peter LaValle and staff described steps already taken to contact third parties and the complainant for additional information.
After discussion, a commissioner moved to refer the matter back to staff with instructions to coordinate with the attorney general and seek court enforcement of the interview subpoena if necessary. The motion carried; the commission also affirmed staff’s redactions to the posted memo and left the underlying modification request unresolved until the staff’s investigation proceeds. Chair Leach said he did not see a reason to repost staff materials containing Miss Riggers’s personal contact information while the matter remained under active enforcement.
The commission recorded the decision as a direction to staff to pursue judicial enforcement where warranted and to continue outreach to potential witnesses; staff confirmed they would proceed. No evidentiary hearing was scheduled at the meeting.
What happens next: staff will coordinate with the attorney general’s office on potential court filings to enforce the subpoena and to continue follow‑up investigation steps, and will report back to the commission as work proceeds.
