A case of executive overreach

Our state’s public records act leans heavily in favor of disclosure, and for good reason. It was enacted by voters in 1972 as an expression of their insistence on open government.

Under that law, records produced or held by government — official documents, memos, emails, databases, audio recordings, etc. — are open to the public unless another law specifically exempts it.

Among those exemptions are certain government deliberations, such as policy recommendations made by subordinates to agency heads before a policy decision is made. The idea behind that exemption, which the state Supreme Court has narrowly accepted, is to avoid harming an agency’s legitimate deliberative or consultive process. But the court has set tight boundaries around it, in keeping with the law’s spirit of openness.

Gov. Chris Gregoire’s administration thinks state law allows a broader exemption for its internal communications. It says the state Constitution inherently contains an “executive privilege” that allows the governor to conceal records at her own discretion.

The Olympia-based Freedom Foundation asked to see records relating to Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement proposals, medical marijuana legislation, and the Columbia River hydro-electric system. The governor’s office denied its requests, asserting executive privilege. The Freedom Foundation sued.

Siding with the governor, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Carol Murphy turned public records law on its head in April, ruling not only that executive privilege exists, but that someone requesting a record the governor claims is privileged carries the burden of proving otherwise.

The Freedom Foundation has appealed to the state Supreme Court. This is an important principle that needs a high-court ruling.

Executive privilege isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. The open records act, however, is quite clear about its intent:

“The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.”

The act, and court rulings that have interpreted it, also make clear its strong pro-disclosure approach. For the governor to assert power to decide what will or won’t be disclosed flies in the face of that long-established principle. At minimum, the burden of showing a government record should be hidden from public view should rest with the government, with a court making the ultimate decision.

The state’s highest court is being asked to defend a principle of openness that the people have long claimed. It’s being asked to do so by rejecting a specious assertion of executive power which undermines that very principle.

It should take this opportunity to underscore Washington’s commitment to open government.

More in Opinion

Editorial cartoons for Thursday, Jan. 18

A sketchy look at the day in politics.… Continue reading

Sen. John McCain: Trump’s ‘fake news’ charges threaten democracy

The “fake news” phrase — granted legitimacy by a U.S. president — provides cover to autocrats worldwide.

Editorial: Eminent domain isn’t popular, but it’s fair

Everett Public Schools’ condemnation process assures fairness for property owners and taxpayers.

Parker: Looking past ‘holes’ and ‘heaps’ to talk immigration

Do race and culture matter? Or should immigration be about the yearning for liberty in all hearts?

Milbank: Trump Cabinet chief sidesteps Trump’s ‘shithole’ talk

Even GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham wonders what happened to Trump on the span of three days.

Unhelpful for John Rosemond to deny mental health issues

As a parent who had to watch her child suffer from obsessive… Continue reading

We need to heed warning regarding nuclear weapons

Thank you for shedding light on the life’s work of Daniel Ellsberg… Continue reading

Homeowners should get price they ask for

I have been following the coverage on the Everett School District using… Continue reading

Editorial cartoons for Wednesday, Jan. 17

A sketchy look at the day in politics.… Continue reading

Most Read