‘To protect victims you are potentially enabling predators.’ Opponents tell senators bill goes too far

A bill aimed to keep state agency and K-12 public school employees who are survivors of domestic violence from public disclosure requirements is making its way through the Legislature, but not without opposition.

While advocates for the bill say that it will offer much-needed protection for domestic violence survivors, others say that the bill goes too far and is far too broad.

As the law currently stands, Washington state’s Public Records Act subjects all public employees to disclosure of public records, unless an exemption exists. For example, personal information such as their address, cell phone numbers, and social security numbers are already exempt from disclosure under the PRA.

The Address Confidentiality Program (ACP) also currently exists for survivors of domestic violence, and allows those individuals to use a substitute mailing address if they are “attempting to escape from domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking, or stalking situations.” The program can forward mail from the substitute address, and allows participants to register to vote without their address becoming publicly available.

House Bill 1533 is sponsored by Rep. Sharlett Mena, D-Tacoma, with a mix of co-sponsorship by 23 Democrats and Republicans.

The bill passed the House on March 6, with an 80-15 vote. House Democrats and Republicans voted for and against the measure.

An amendment was added to the initial version of the legislation that would require employees to provide a sworn statement every two years showing a “reasonable basis that the risk of domestic violence, sexual assault, sexual abuse, stalking, or harassment continues to exist” for themselves or their dependents.

The legislation, now in Senate, had a public hearing Tuesday in the Senate State Government and Elections Committee, with both proponents and opponents testifying.

Juliane Williams, a domestic violence survivor and Washington Public Employees Association member, told committee members that she supports the bill because it would benefit survivors like her in the workplace.

After leaving an abusive situation, she said it was difficult to maintain employment or get services because it required her to use a permanent address. She said many survivors must stay on the move to avoid detection from their abusers, so she and her children lived out of shelters and her vehicle for almost a year.

Williams said she was able to find a stable job at a state agency and qualified for the ACP, which she said was “mostly” a game-changer. Less than 12 months later, however, she said that her husband found her through her work, where he eventually showed up despite a restraining order.

“If they want to find us, they’ll burn the calories — and he did,” Williams said.

Williams said he found her because her work address was connected to her name, something even the ACP couldn’t protect. A public records request also later came in seeking her middle initial and date of birth, which immediately prompted her to seek an injunction to prevent disclosure.

But others spoke in opposition to the legislation.

Jonathan Martin, investigations editor for the Seattle Times, told the committee that he takes the responsibility of protecting domestic violence survivors very seriously, which is why names are sometimes not reported despite being available in public records.

However, he said, the proposed legislation has “significant trade-offs.” It would also allow any employee working in state government and K-12 education to file an affidavit with their agency or school saying that they simply believed that they may had been a victim of domestic violence, stalking and harassment.

Martin said the exemption is “very broad” and could potentially make public employees “ghost employees,” completely invisible to the public eye.

This would make the work of reporters “extremely difficult” in state government, he said. Some stories would not be possible if the individuals involved were protected by the proposed bill, Martin said.

He cited a story about a prison doctor who was quietly fired after the death of three inmates. Personnel files were used to investigate the doctor, but if she had been protected by the proposed bill, that story would not have been possible and she wouldn’t have been held accountable, Martin said.

“I fear that to protect victims you are potentially enabling predators,” he said.

Multiple media outlets in Washington also have editorialized against the bill. Others have voiced concerns that because the bill makes all employee information private, the public would never be able to know if the law is even being used properly.

A companion bill in the Senate was introduced earlier in the session, but did not receive a hearing.

If the House bill is passed by the Senate and signed by the governor, the bill would become law immediately.

The last day of the legislative session is April 23.