Roskelley Sued By Developer Mall Builder Claims He Was Defamed In Bid To Develop Shoreline Property

One of Spokane’s biggest developers is suing a county commissioner, claiming John Roskelley defamed him and withheld public records.

The lawsuit, which also names the county as a defendant, was filed Thursday by Raymond Hanson, developer of the Spokane Valley Mall and neighboring property. The suit stems from a request by Hanson to develop land near the Spokane River.

The suit asks for unspecified damages, plus $5 to $100 for each day the county delays a decision on Hanson’s shoreline request, beginning Oct. 11.

According to documents filed with the suit, Hanson requested all electronic mail Roskelley wrote or received regarding the shorelines project. Roskelley wrote back that there were only two such documents that hadn’t already been deleted from his computer. He included those two in his return letter.

But Hanson did not request only e-mail stored on Roskelley’s computer. He requested “copies of each and every e-mail … that you drafted, assisted in drafting, copied or reviewed” regarding Hanson’s project.

The Planning Department file for Hanson’s project includes many pages of printed e-mail documents with Roskelley listed as either the sender or a recipient.

Roskelley, a world-class mountaineer, is leading trekkers in the Himalayas and cannot be reached by telephone. Commissioners Kate McCaslin and Phil Harris said they cannot comment on pending lawsuits.

State law requires public officials to release most documents to anyone who requests them.

The law provides some exemptions. Even then, officials must acknowledge that the documents exist and provide legal justification for not releasing them.

Courts have yet to settle the issue of whether a computer message is a public document if it is deleted without being printed on paper.

The suit contends Roskelley “made unwarranted personal attacks against Raymond Hanson” during private meetings between Roskelley and county planners. It doesn’t state a source for that information, which is the basis for the defamation claim.

Hanson said his attorney, Jerry Trunkenbolz, had advised him not to comment on the lawsuit. Trunkenbolz would not comment about the alleged defamation of character.

Hanson wants to build a hotel, restaurant and stores near Sullivan Road, within 200 feet of the river. Normally, such projects are not allowed within 250 feet of the river on land zoned “pastoral.”

John Nunnery, the county’s shoreline administrator, recommended approval, saying Hanson’s land no longer merits its “pastoral” designation. State biologists and shorelines specialists criticized Nunnery’s finding that the project would benefit wildlife since Hanson proposed improving habitat on nearby land.

“We wholeheartedly reject your conclusion. … In fact, we find it totally absurd,” wrote Kevin Robinette, a habitat biologist for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife.

County documents show Roskelley wanted to delay county consideration of Hanson’s proposal until new shorelines rules are written under the state’s Growth Management Act. However, county attorney Rob Binger warned commissioners they had no legal basis for a delay.

On Sept. 2, the county Planning Commission recommended county commissioners reject Hanson’s project. County commissioners have not yet scheduled a hearing on the matter.

Hanson contends they should settle the issue by Oct. 11, 120 days after he first filed his request.

This is the second lawsuit filed this year over county computer documents.

Businessman Bernard Daines is suing to obtain e-mail messages about the Growth Management Act. In that case, the county contends it cannot provide the messages because they are deleted after five days. Daines contends that policy violates state law.

Like Hanson, Daines is represented by Trunkenbolz.

The Spokesman-Review last year reported that commissioners often use computers to have conversations that otherwise wouldn’t be allowed outside a public meeting. Such was the case with the Hanson project.

The newspaper requested all e-mail written or received by commissioners during a five-day period - 900 documents in all. Each of the commissioners complied with the request, but Roskelley protested that some of the documents were personal and shouldn’t be disclosed.

In an interview since then, Roskelley said he now deletes far more e-mail than he did before the newspaper made its request.