Lawmakers may yet find a way to honor the provisions of the 1972 state Public Records Act while protecting cities, counties and other local agencies from unreasonable costs in fulfilling requests for public documents. But a House Bill that, as written, would allow governments to spend as little as 10 hours a month fulfilling requests, isn’t the solution.
House Bill 2576 failed to get a floor vote before a legislative cutoff last week, but could be revived following a decision by House leadership that the bill is necessary to implement the budget.
Considering the small expenditure it would require if implemented, its revival as a budget bill rather than policy legislation is arguable. But the bill is easily opposed for what it would do to make the Public Records Act infuriating and useless for anyone seeking documents that belong to the public and should be made readily available upon request.
Some city, county and other local government agencies have objected to some requests they see as being overly broad and too time-consuming and expensive to fulfill. Jason Thompson, director of human resources for the Marysville School District told LaVendrick Smith with the Washington Newspaper Publishers Association news service, that a request for all district records for every instance of school bullying during the past decade would have cost the district $300,000 to fulfill.
There are those who make requests in the hopes of filing suit and winning a settlement or court award if an agency fails to meet the request in a timely fashion. Others may not understand the breadth of the information they seek. But most are legitimate requests that can be fulfilled with little complication.
But the gatekeepers of public information shouldn’t be allowed to make the call on which requests are legitimate and which are not.
The legislation would allow the governmental agency to limit the time it spends on all public records requests to a minimum of 10 hours a month and would allow the agency to prioritize the order in which it responds to requests, recommending that priority be given to requests that involve “imminent threat to public safety,” “imminent legislative, administrative or judicial action,” and requests that are “readily fulfilled” or immediately accessible.
That’s too much leeway. It leaves the definitions of “imminent” and “readily fulfilled” to individual agencies. And it leaves too much opportunity for public officials, particularly those who on rare occasion may desire to conceal information, to bury certain requests at the bottom of the pile to be taken up next month when the 10-hour clock starts again.
The legislation attempts to remedy potential disputes by allowing a court to rule on whether records have been withheld for an unreasonable period. But that requires a $50 filing fee for challenges, the hiring of a lawyer and further delay in obtaining the records. In seeking to make the process more affordable tor government agencies, the legislation makes it more costly for those seeking public records.
In a guest commentary in the Seattle Times, Katherine George, legal chairwoman for the Washington Coalition for Open Government, and George Erb, journalism instructor at Western Washington University and a coalition board member, note that the state Auditor’s Office is reviewing the financial costs of the Public Records Act for local governments. A report is expected this fall and should provide better information than the litany of anecdotes that is used now to justify relief from the records act.
One provision in the legislation could be helpful. It would create a 16-member task force of lawmakers, open government advocates, members of the media, local government representatives and members of the public to make recommendations that would preserve the access the Public Records Act requires while keeping its costs and its demands on the time of government staff within reason.
That’s a better idea than expecting that the public’s right to know can be honored in 10 hours a month.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
