Access to public records in Washington, which has become slower in recent years, should improve under new rules introduced by state Attorney General Nick Brown.
Prompted by a petition from media organizations, Brown is updating the rules to better reflect the law and to help address logjams holding up disclosure.
The underlying Public Records Act is not changing because of this proposal.
What’s changing are the model rules that Brown’s office provides to state and local governments.
The model rules are a guideline for complying with state law that requires government agencies to make nearly all records promptly available to the public, except for things like sensitive personal and financial information.
But the rules are outdated and in places don’t completely align with the law and recent court rulings, Brown said. They also need updating to help address the growing complexity of managing and responding to records requests.
“I think government is super capable of adjusting to these changes, and we want to make it easy for both our clients that we serve and the public’s need for access,” he said in a phone interview.
One proposed changes says agencies need to “promptly” respond to records requests. That’s in the law but not the current rules.
Another gives agencies flexibility to triage requests, so the simplest ones aren’t delayed months or years waiting for complicated requests to be fulfilled. That “first in, first out” approach has led to absurd situations, like the Seattle Police Department last year telling a reporter at The Seattle Times it would take 10 months to provide a simple record.
Mike Fancher, president of the Washington Coalition for Open Government, said the changes “are a good step toward improving transparency and especially the issue of promptly providing the records.”
The group last year reported that delays in obtaining public records increased substantially over the previous five years.
Updated rules were requested a year ago by The Seattle Times and supported by other media organizations and transparency advocates.
“Overall there’s some really good stuff in there that should make a difference,” said Kathy George, a lawyer who worked with the Times on the proposal.
Gov. Bob Ferguson, who was then attorney general, started the process and solicited comments from public agencies through early January.
Brown released a draft of the new rules on Oct. 3 and will accept written comments until Nov. 17. A public hearing is scheduled for 3-5 p.m. Nov. 6 in the John A. Cherberg Building, Room ABC, in Olympia.
If no major changes are made the rules could take effect in January, according to an estimate his office provided.
I urge Washingtonians who favor transparent and responsive government to comment at the hearing or by emailing agorulemaking@atg.wa.gov.
I also appreciate how hard it can be for agencies to handle records requests, especially if they are bombarded with overly broad requests by people indifferent to the burden they create.
Yet providing prompt access to records is a core responsibility of every public agency in Washington, which has a deep commitment to open and accountable government.
Updated rules should help make disclosure easier for agencies.
What’s also needed is for local and state leaders to demonstrate their support for open and responsive government by providing the budget, staff, technology and training to do this as efficiently as possible.
The press needs timely access to records to inform the public of current events. Delays keep the public in the dark about what its agencies and public servants are doing, in some cases beyond elections when voters need that information.
Mostly, though, improved access helps the general public.
A state survey in 2022 found that most public-records requests were made by individuals and just 2% were submitted by the media. Fewer local news outlets do extensive, investigative reporting since many saw their newsrooms depleted over the last two decades.
Government agencies actually make more public-records requests than the media nowadays. So they’ll benefit as much as anyone if new rules result in more prompt access.
Brown deserves kudos for pursuing this project and more government transparency. That could put him at odds with other officials and unions that have pushed to limit public access to public records.
Dozens of agencies objected to the proposal when comments were informally solicited last year.
Brown said pushback is expected and changes may be made in response to feedback. But he’s committed to improving the model rules.
“Change is hard,” he said. “It is challenging for agencies to operate in this environment. I know for local governments, navigating the Public Records Act is a big part of their day to day and a legit concern. But I think the goal of pushing for increased transparency and efficiency is really important.”
Brown cited two reasons to proceed. One is that model rules “haven’t matched up” with legal requirements that state and local agencies need to follow.
A more “macro” reason is “that people don’t trust government.”
“I think we need to, as public officials, always be leaning into, what are the things that we can do to cut against the tide of mistrust,” he said. “And one of those things is access and transparency, both about things that we’re doing well and things that are challenging.”
Then there’s the Public Records Act, which the people of Washington created with a citizens initiative in 1972 when there was also widespread mistrust of government.
The law’s opening statement is worth repeating, again and again:
“The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. 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. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created.”
