Of the 11 bills in the Legislature this session aimed at amending public disclosure laws, several are badly written and would compromise the public's right to know. Here's a rundown.
Login / Register
go to mobile version »

Our Sponsors:

READ MORE »

Our Members

Many thanks to

Mary Miller

and

Louie & Bronwyn Echols

some of our many supporters.

ALL MEMBERS »

Politics »

 

Disclosure laws: handle with care, please

 

Of the 11 bills in the Legislature this session aimed at amending public disclosure laws, several are badly written and would compromise the public's right to know. Here's a rundown.


State of Washington

Washington State Legislative Building

Washington state citizens passed an initiative in 1973 that required government to let the people know what government was doing. The new Public Disclosure Law's preamble declared: “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.”

Since the initiative's passage, there has been a steady supply of new bills changing and often weakening the public disclosure laws. The number of changes to the law and the exemptions for what information can be made public are now so numerous that the Governor appointed a special committee to make sense of the hundreds of existing exemptions. Some of these changes may have been needed, but many others have made getting information more difficult.

Government records may contain information about individuals that can and should not be available to anyone, so most of these exemptions make good sense. In a few cases, however, legislators, acting for their constituencies, cities, school districts, small jurisdictions or public agencies, have proposed to weaken the public disclosure law, finding it onerous or at least inconvenient.

A few legislators are arrogant enough to have said some of the information is none of the public’s business. Other legislators don’t want their dirty laundry aired or their screw-ups made public. Regrettably, there are always guys like Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich getting elected, who need the media and the public looking over their shoulders all the time.

Many legislators seeking changes wish to preserve the full intent of the law, but see the need to clarify legal questions that have arisen through the years. But legislators need to be judicious with their changes because a carelessly added or subtracted comma or word can completely change the intent of the law. A case in point: there are 11 new bills relating to our Public Disclosure Act before the Legislature now, one of which, HB 1317, though attempting to protect people from harassment, is so poorly crafted that it would significantly weaken the Public Disclosure Law, not to mention cost an enormous amount to implement.

The committee assigned to sort out the complexity and number of existing exemptions is called the “Sunshine Committee" and it is the target of a few who are fearful that the public can learn too much. This group has proposed SB 5119, which would have the Sunshine Committee abolished.

Other bills, HB 1181 and HB 1317, while intended to protect prosecutors, jurors, police, and prison guards by preventing inmates in prisons from getting records, are well-intended, but so badly written that they open the door to changes in the disclosure law that would lead to weakening the right for any citizen’s legitimate inquiry into government.

Currently, convicted felons in prison can access by letter or the Internet public records including the personal information of the cops who arrested them; the name of the prosecuting attorney, their address and the names of their children; as well as the names of the jurors who convicted them. Scary stuff. It should not happen. But the problem is that the proposed legislation not only keeps convicted felons from discovering information, but it also seriously hampers the ordinary law-abiding citizen from discovering aspects of our government’s performance that we should all know about.

The Washington Coalition of Cities and other jurisdictions such as public schools, fire districts, and water districts are arguing for passage of HB 1181 and HB 1317. While they could have backed a bill that focused on the very narrow problem issues, they opted instead for a very broad interpretation. One might argue they are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Those who favor new restrictive legislation also appear unaware that much of what they want already exists in the exemptions already on the books. All it needs is enforcement.

The Washington Coalition of Open Government is a nonprofit watchdog group composed of citizens, attorneys, legislators, and judges dedicated to defending the principals of the Public Disclosure Act. This organization is well-qualified to analyze legislation concerning the public disclosure law. Their work has revealed that many governmental employees simply don’t understand the public disclosure law, and their responsibility to comply with it.

For detailed information on all the current legislation and proposed bills concerning the public disclosure laws check out the Washington Coalition of Open Government .

Kent Kammerer is the unofficial leader and official scribe of the informal, non-partisan Seattle Neighborhood Coalition, which meets over breakfast once a month to discuss Seattle policy and politics.


Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!

Comments:

Posted Thu, Feb 12, 11:30 a.m. Inappropriate

thanks so much for keeping track of this very important issue. Public disclosure and transparency are exceedingly important.

BTW, Initiative 276 passed in 1972.

Posted Thu, Feb 12, 3:10 p.m. Inappropriate

The story on the ultimate weakening of public disclosure laws by steadily adding new exemptions is something to be concerned about. The story mentions proposed bills designed to protect the personal information of state employees who deal with felons. Clearly they need protection. Not clarified in the story is why the bills weaken public disclosure. The bill language allows someone like a prison guard or prosecutor to seek an injunction blocking release of a record if they think they are being harassed by the requester. The bill language allows the motivation of a requester to be considered along with whether a requester has made previous requests. The risk of this language is that it sets a precedent that any agency of government may reject the release of information based on what the government thinks of your motivation. Currently no citizen or newspaper must explain why they want public information. There are many other ways to protect personal information being released to prison inmates. Kent Kammerer

Posted Fri, Feb 13, 8:17 a.m. Inappropriate

This is not just an issue about prisoner access. The idea of a sunshine law is predicated on good-faith requests (as well as compelling good-faith responses). Some citizens who have nothing better to do with their time have turned this into a means of harrassment - for instance, every one of several given staff's e-mails for months on end. This particular individual also submits a lot of other requests. In the end, the jurisdiction for which I work ends up paying for almost an entire FTE just to service this one guy's requests. Still others have turned it into a profiteering enterprise. The only "dialogue" I see occurring here so far is between members of the press, and the problem is, y'all don't perceive anything as being "broken." Well, it is. That's public money these people are bleeding away, and that, not the public good, is their interest.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »