Our Voice: Public records reform must include open discussion

A legislative proposal that would have made it tougher for citizens to access public records is, thankfully, dead this session. However, some lawmakers refuse to give up, and appear intent on resurrecting the issue in the future.

When they do, they need to involve journalists and other advocates for open government during their initial planning stages — not wait until after they have decided on a bill’s final draft.

That’s partly what killed House Bill 2576 this year.

Lawmakers such as Rep. Terry Nealey, R-Dayton, pushed for this flawed piece of legislation that would have placed restrictions on the Washington State Public Records Act. His concern is that the system easily can be abused by people who may have a vendetta against a government agency, and that too many people file a ridiculously large number of record requests as a way to harass public employees.

But the justification for these concerns is primarily anecdotal stories, and while they may be compelling, these are not enough to warrant changing a core value of open government like the public records law.

Last week, the House included $250,000 in its budget for a study that would help determine just how burdensome public record requests are to government agencies around the state. The study also will look at what might happen if the amount of staff time devoted to those requests were limited every month, as well as forming a public records commission to deal with disputes.

The study is a positive step and should provide objective insight into an issue that primarily has been driven by extreme, random examples. But regardless of what the study might reveal, lawmakers still must include journalists early in the discussion.

In a recent column in the Tri-City Herald, Nealey used the situation in Mesa as a reason to limit access to public records. The small town was ordered to pay a $246,000 fine to Donna Zink for not honoring her numerous records requests, which Nealey said crippled the town’s $340,000 budget.

However, Zink responded to Nealey’s column post on the Tri-City Herald website and said Mesa never paid anything except a portion of her attorney fees and costs, and has yet to pay the penalties. “There must not be very many abusive records requesters if they are still touting the Mesa case, a 13-year-old case as an example of why the Legislature needs to draw the curtains,” she said.

She makes an interesting observation.

Perhaps a study will help determine how widespread any abuse is, and whether change in the public records law is truly needed

So far, there is no news yet on whether the Senate will agree to pay for the study proposed by the House. The legislative session is scheduled to end at the end of this week, so negotiations are ongoing.

But even if a study is not funded, lawmakers who are determined to mess with the public records law must understand they can’t just spring a bill in the middle of the legislative session and expect support. If they want reform, they need to include journalists and the public in the discussion early on.

This story was originally published March 7, 2016 at 5:28 PM with the headline "Our Voice: Public records reform must include open discussion."