Editorial: Take steps to preserve access to public records

By The Herald Editorial Board

Discussions on how best to protect access to public records while limiting the growing costs for state and local government agencies to respond to records requests should get some help from a report released earlier this week by the Washington State Auditor’s Office.

Local governments have provided plenty of anecdotal reports of outrageous requests in recent years, just as there have been many examples of government foot-dragging and other noncompliance that resulted in costly settlements and court rulings against governments.

The report, sought by the Legislature, provides a more comprehensive look at the increasing costs and complexity in meeting the provisions of the state’s Public Record Act, but also offers some solutions, including remedies in use in other states that face the same struggle.

Responding to more than 285,000 public records requests in 2015 cost state and local governments an estimated $60 million, the report found. State agencies and boards accounted for about $22 million of the total, with cities and towns reporting $16.7 million in costs and counties spending $11.2 million. And those likely are conservative estimates, the report notes, as only 541 of the 923 governments participating in the survey were able to provide cost figures.

And the number of requests and their costs are increasing; the report found a 36 percent increases in the number of requests between 2011 and 2015; and a 70 percent increase in costs to fulfill those requests during the same period. Employee time in responding to requests accounts for more than 95 percent of the cost involved.

It’s not hard to understand why costs are increasing. Most might picture requests that involve copies of meeting minutes, budgets and police reports, but as technology has advanced, records also now include emails, law enforcement video and 911 recordings, much of which must be reviewed for information that is required to be redacted.

The city of Snohomish offers a local example of the costs of records requests. Its report to the auditor showed it spent $62,500 in 2015 to fulfill records requests. “And we’re seeing a spike in requests in 2016 as we look at the trend line,” said Larry Bauman, city manager.

Bauman is hopeful the report will generate more discussion, particularly among lawmakers, to “find some middle ground to maintain open access to public records,” while limiting the costs from nuisance requests that don’t serve a public purpose.

But there’s concern on the other end that the middle ground might instead limit access to legitimate requests, either by delaying timely response or passing on costs that discourage requests.

Toby Nixon, president of the Washington Council for Open Government, told the Seattle Times he was concerned the report by the auditor’s office might be used to weaken the Public Records Act.

“The records are owned by the people, and we have a right to see them,” Nixon told The Times.

The report does suggest a system of fees used in other states to recover costs. Already, state courts and judicial agencies, which operate under their own rules, have allowed fees for records requests not to exceed $30 an hour after the first hour of staff time to retrieve and prepare records, the report shows.

But before lawmakers take the easy road and start imposing fees, the report also notes several other steps state and local governments can take that would improve records management, reduce inefficiencies and help control the costs of fulfilling requests. Among them:

Communicating with requesters to clarify what records are being sought to narrow the search;

Disclosing information before it’s requested by posting records and data to a online records portal; and

Organizing records for easier search and retrieval, for which there already is software available.

The increasing and burdensome costs of responding to public records requests, particularly for smaller cities that don’t have the resources of larger cities and state agencies, need to be addressed.

That’s not just to protect those governments’ ability to provide the other services for which they are responsible, but to protect the Public Records Act itself.