Rossi wants city attorney off panel

Gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi is calling for Gov. Christine Gregoire to remove Seattle City Attorney Thomas Carr as the head of the state's Sunshine Committee after the city subpoenaed three Seattle Times reporters.

The committee led by Carr is looking at ways to strengthen state open-records laws. But the attempt to force The Times reporters to identify confidential sources cited in stories about police misconduct runs directly counter to the state's new reporter-shield law, which explicitly prohibits subpoenas compelling reporters to turn over their notes or confidential sources.

"It is outrageous that the person hand-picked by Christine Gregoire to lead a committee on open government is now demanding confidential sources be revealed by the very people who help keep government accountable," said Jill Strait, Rossi's spokeswoman. "We really shouldn't expect any differently from Carr, who has a long history of keeping the doors to government shut tightly."

The governor's spokesman, Lloyd Brown, said Gregoire was "troubled by the story."

"We need some time to talk to Tom Carr," Brown said. "What's troubling about the situation is the appearance of the person who's heading the Sunshine Committee challenging the ... shield law."

Former police Officer John Powers, who is suing the city for $6 million over his firing, said he was defamed by named and unnamed city officials in The Times' stories.

Carr argued that delivering the subpoenas — even if a judge doesn't force The Times to comply — could help the city show a jury that it took all possible steps to prove Powers was not defamed.

"I'm not saying we'd take this to the Supreme Court, and we certainly don't want reporters to go to jail," Carr said. "We're going to defend [the articles] as true, but it would be nice if The Times would help us out on this."

The newspaper on Thursday asked Chief U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik, who is presiding on the officer's case, for a protective order stating that the reporters do not have to turn over their sources.

"We're actually quite confident we'll get that and that we'll not have to reveal our sources," Times Executive Editor David Boardman said Friday.

If the issuance of the subpoenas is "some sort of legal strategy," he added, "I'm offended that the city attorney would try to use us and the First Amendment in that way."

The subpoenas were issued Thursday to reporters Mike Carter, Steve Miletich and Christine Willmsen, who reported in 2004 and 2005 about FBI and Seattle Police Department investigations into misconduct by officers who worked off-duty at clubs, bars and restaurants in the Belltown neighborhood.

Paul Olsen, the assistant city attorney handling the case, acknowledged Friday that the city is still "sorting out who said what," and had not exhausted all means of gleaning the information before resorting to the subpoenas. But he also noted that the deadline for producing discovery in the officer's lawsuit is Dec. 9.

The city could ask for the deadline to be delayed. Olsen also acknowledged that, before issuing the subpoenas, the city did not consider whether it would be able to defeat any claim by The Times that it does not have to reveal its sources.

Carr insisted Friday afternoon that before resorting to subpoenas, his office tried to ask The Times to cooperate and help prove the truth of the statements it reported. He said he believed the newspaper refused to cooperate so that it could test the applicability of the state shield law in federal court.

In reality, the first communication on the topic was a letter from the City Attorney's Office to The Times Nov. 7. While Olsen did write, "I would be interested in discussing with you the best way to establish the bounds of the reporters' participation in the matter," he also included the draft subpoenas and written questions asking the reporters to name sources, and he said he was going to serve the subpoenas within a few days.

"Tell us what you know now, or tell us in court," is how Boardman said he interpreted the letter. He described as preposterous the notion that The Times was trying to get subpoenaed so it could test the shield law, and he said The Times stands behind everything it publishes.

On Nov. 8, a Times lawyer wrote Olsen back to say they would be resisting the subpoenas.