Most of our state senators appear to be all for open government – as long as it doesn’t apply to them.
It’s hard to conclude otherwise after the Senate on Monday night approved an amendment that would exclude legislators from the same public disclosure rules that apply to most of the rest of state and local government.
The amendment was one of two attached to a bill requested by Attorney General Rob McKenna, who has emerged as a forceful champion of the public’s right to know. The original bill, passed overwhelmingly by the House, sought to undo damage when the state Supreme Court ruled last year that government didn’t have to comply with an “overbroad request” for public documents. That provision remains in the bill senators approved Monday in a 42-4 vote, but they added two exemptions, limiting access to the records of lawmakers and those regarding the release of sex offenders.
Both amendments, which are opposed by McKenna, unnecessarily weaken public access to public information. They should be rejected by the House.
Senators should get real and approve a final bill without these wrong-headed amendments. Anything less would be an affront to Washington’s strong tradition of open government.
The sex-offender provision purportedly seeks to protect victims from being victimized again by publicity when offenders are released. It would exempt from public review the documents police and other officials use to rate the danger of sex offenders when they’re returned to communities. The idea, apparently, is to keep the news media from reporting the sordid details of such crimes. But the exemption would only help sex offenders, who would much prefer to live in the shadows – where they remain a greater threat.
The other amendment may be even more outrageous. It allows lawmakers to hide official correspondence from public disclosure, eliminating a crucial tool for legal and ethical accountability. Amendment co-sponsor Marilyn Rasmussen (D-Eatonville) said the added confidentiality is needed so “somebody can’t come in on a fishing trip and try to find out who called you, who talked to you and what was the nature of their business.”
That sounds like exactly the kind of information the public should be able to see. And wouldn’t honest lawmakers prefer that citizens know that special interests aren’t wielding undue influence? The possibility that public disclosure might pose an occasional inconvenience to legislative staffs is just part of doing the people’s business. The emphasis must be on doing that business in the open.
Senators need to remember that they’re working for the people, not the other way around.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
