WA public records secrecy returns from the grave in Olympia | Opinion

The Washington Legislature has a twist on the old saying that you can’t keep a good person down. In Olympia, you can’t keep a bad bill down. Such is the case with companion bills that would make it more difficult for Washingtonians to keep tabs on their government.

Lawmakers introduced House Bill 1597 and Senate Bill 5571 a year ago. Those bills sat in committees for all of 2023, never gaining traction. Usually, that would be the end of it, little deaths for little bills.

But lawmakers are on a secrecy tear these days. Most recently they bamboozled a judge into upholding a manufactured “legislative privilege.” Now they’ve brought HB 1597 and SB 5571 back from the dead for another run at limiting the public’s right to know.

Washington’s Public Records Act is clear that government records belong to the people. “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,” it declares.

An agency or office — from a local city council to the governor’s office — may withhold official records only if they fall under one of the many exemptions defined in state code. But even in that, the Public Records Act demands deference to the people and transparency.

“This chapter shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy and to assure that the public interest will be fully protected,” it reads. “In the event of conflict between the provisions of this chapter and any other act, the provisions of this chapter shall govern.”

Yet government officials sometimes play fast and loose with exemptions. They interpret them broadly so that they don’t have to release documents to the public. Other times, they simply deny that records exist or refuse to give them up in a timely manner.

In those cases, whoever requested the records can appeal to the courts. If they show that the agency acted against the law, they get the documents they asked for.

If HB 1597 and SB 5571 become law, requesters would have to file an administrative review with the agency that already rejected their request before they could ask a judge. That agency would have 20 days to complete its review. It’s hard to imagine that many agencies will change their mind. If there’s a brewing scandal, looming election or government contract up for approval, transparency has a deadline.

Making matters worse, when an appeal finally makes it to court, requesters would have to sign a certification avowing that they aren’t asking for records for “any improper purpose.” That includes any request made to harass, to delay government action, or for “any other frivolous purpose.”

The bills are vague about what counts as frivolous or harassing. In our experience, many elected officials consider almost any request for records frivolous, annoying and bordering on harassment. Would a reporter investigating government corruption count as harassing?

The business of government is the public’s business. Why someone wants to see a public record has no bearing on whether that record is public or not. If officials and the courts get to decide which requests are proper, a record could be public for some people but not for others.

These bills may be an attempt to rein in serial requesters who make unrealistic demands for public records just to harass government workers. We understand there are people who abuse the law and ruin the process for everyone else.

But using extreme measures to go after this tiny group isn’t worth sacrificing the public’s right to know.

Nine lawmakers – five Democrats and four Republicans – have signed on as sponsors of the bills, proving once again that if there’s one thing that unites the two major parties, it’s legislative hubris and disdain for open government.

The sponsors include two senators from this part of the state, Nikki Torres, R-Pasco, and Curtis King, R-Yakima.

If these bills pass, voters should remember who was on public’s side and who was on the side of secrecy. Some bills are better off left for dead.