State's public records laws need fixing - to a point

According to a recent study by the Center for Public Integrity, Washington state is the 12th best in the nation for openness, which isn’t saying much apparently as it received a D-plus and the ranking reflected a decline when it comes to governmental openness and integrity.

In Spokesman-Review writer Jim Camden’s story on the study, Washington Secretary of State spokesman Dave Ammons noted the state typically gets high marks in other studies for its public records disclosure laws and governmental transparency.

“But it’s something you never stop working on,” Ammons added.

That’s something news media outlets and government officials likely agree on — our public disclosure laws need work. How and where that work needs to occur will differ.

One of the biggest concerns for Washington’s public officials is dealing with large public records requests that tie up limited resources for extended periods of time, preventing employees from concentrating on other tasks. Sometimes these requests are simply fishing expeditions by private citizens with a beef looking for faults or attorneys handling class action suits looking for as many potential money pots as possible.

Other times, these records requests come from individuals engaged in research with potential commercial value. The city of Cheney is currently filling such a request by two professors from separate universities engaged in a joint research project.

The professors, who have submitted their request to other Washington cities, have asked for all police reports resulting in felony arrests, warrant or in-view, from 2012 – 2014, including additional data such as if charges were filed. The request was filed Oct. 2, and according to Cheney Finance Department officials, they have just recently provided all the information for 2012.

They’re still working on 2013 and 2014.

Association of Washington Cities governmental relations advocate Candace Bock said other cities have received requests so large, that they cannot meet the entire request immediately, and must release the information over time as filled. Accordingly, the AWC has listed “strengthening” the Public Records Act, particularly when it comes to requests that “do not provide a public benefit proportionate to the taxpayer dollars needed” by allowing cities to recoup more of their costs through charging “reasonable” fees along with resolving conflicts outside the courtroom.

We agree cities and counties need some help in dealing with these forms of requests. But only to the point that the help does not add more exemptions to existing Sunshine laws.

Passed in 1972 with over 72 percent of the vote, Initiative 276 set up what was at the time the nation’s premier open records and public disclosure laws. Since then, hundreds of exemptions have been added to those laws, making public disclosure difficult at times, not only for media organizations such as ours but particularly for the average citizen.

Our relationship with local public agencies regarding record requests has mostly been good. But there have been times that have given us pause.

Every so often, a public official balks at providing copies of information already publicly presented because they are not sure that information should be given to the media specifically. There have been times we have had to ask for public information that really should have been made available at a public meeting.

On one occasion, a request was filled slowly, and with many questions asked and eventually lacked some requested information, the agency citing exemptions that, when examined against other information submitted, were backed by flimsy reasoning.

We agree work needs to be done on this state’s public records and disclosure laws. But that work should be eliminating the numerous exemptions that have clouded the intent of the original law. And while we understand concerns about the cost of filling public records, and agree there should be some relief, we think public officials might want to take an inward look at why they’re experiencing that burden.

Or as Ammons put it in a Nov. 17 interview, “The ones who have exemptions are the ones who are now screaming bloody murder.”