Public input? Who cares?

“The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. 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 people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created.”

That declaration is repeated more than once in Washington’s public disclosure and open meetings laws.

It’s a nice ideal. In practice, it isn’t working so well.

With increasing audacity, key state legislators are taking control from the people and seizing it for themselves. Amid the difficult process of closing a $2.8 billion budget shortfall, they’ve skirted, waived or ignored the public’s right to know what they’re up to and comment on it.

The latest example came Thursday. See where this registers on your outrage meter:

The Senate Ways and Means Committee scheduled an afternoon public hearing on a substitute bill to create a state income tax. But the amendment on which the public was supposed to comment wasn’t even available until the hearing began.

This legislative chicanery is right in line with the recent introduction of “title-only” bills, proposals that go through a public hearing and are passed by a committee, even though they include no details. Those are added later, when there’s no opportunity for public comment. It’s a blatantly underhanded way to avoid scrutiny of a controversial idea.

And in another blow to transparency, a House panel voted to eliminate the state’s Sunshine Committee, created in 2007 to strengthen the state’s open records laws. The Senate voted overwhelmingly to keep the Sunshine Committee in place, and there’s still time for the House Ways and Means Committee to restore it. We strongly urge it to do so, if only to keep some measure of faith with the public.

All this is on top of state legislators’ continued resistance to calls for them to open their own records, such as e-mails, to public review — a requirement of every local legislative body in the state.

Jason Mercier of the Washington Policy Center, a leading transparency watchdog, has become so frustrated that he has proposed a constitutional amendment mandating a 72-hour waiting period between the introduction of a bill and a public hearing on it, outlawing title-only bills, and giving lawmakers 24 hours to read a bill before voting on final passage.

Because constitutional amendments require supermajority legislative support, we won’t hold our breath. We do, however, share Mercier’s frustration at lawmakers’ disdain for public input. Citizens, we suspect, do too.

Talk to us

More in Opinion

Editorial: Reopen schools in fall, yes, but do it safely

Rather than bully schools into reopening, the president should secure funding to protect students.

Editorial cartoons for Monday, July 13

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Editorial: Woodard, Paul for state House’s 10th District

The Herald endorses: Suzanne Woodard and Dave Paul for the ‘purple’ multi-county legislative district.

Editorial: What history is owed through our monuments

The decisions regarding whom we honor in our public squares require deliberation and consensus.

Editorial: It’s not just baseball that we may have to wait for

The AquaSox season is canceled. But if we don’t get a grip on COVID, we risk losing much more.

Commentary: ICE requirements for foreign students unworkable

Telling international students to go home if courses are online-only won’t serve students or colleges.

We need to see data on county’s Covid cases

I was alarmed and dismayed when I read the article regarding Snohomish… Continue reading

Sheriff has a poor record after only six months

Sheriff Adam Fortney is an absolute embarrassment to our county and a… Continue reading

Commentary: Yes on bond can turn students into superheroes

The Everett Schools bond will help fund career programs in health care and more to serve growing needs.

Most Read