(The Center Square) – As Washington state senators contemplate a proposal that would exempt some state employees identities from public disclosure, a House bill would set up a task force that one critic says would “gut” the Public Records Act and undermine government transparency.
Proponents argue that the task force will help tackle what they consider to be overly burdensome, expensive or frivolous requests meant to harass local governments.
Under House Bill 2661 sponsored by Rep. Skyler Rude, R-Walla Walla, a temporary task force would be created consisting of eight voting members and four nonvoting legislators to “to examine the impact of frivolous, retaliatory, or harassing public records requests on state and local agencies, and strategies to deter such requests.”
However, open government advocate Arthur West said at the bill’s Feb. 3 public hearing in the House State Government & Tribal Relations that the bill is “the most recent attempt to gut the Public Records Act. It provides lip service to the PRA.” He called the the claims of frivolous or harassing requests is “a red herring to set up a committee with the intent of completely eviscerating the Public Records Act.”
Rude told committee members that the bill was inspired by conversations with school districts regarding both the cost and perceived frivolous nature of some records requests.
“I thought that for something as complicated, potentially controversial as the Public Records Act, a good first step would be to create a task force,” he said. “If the Public Records Act allows for a requester to submit dozens and dozens of the exact same request just for the intent of being harassing, we need to make some updates.”
Committee member Rep. Rob Chase, R-Spokane Valley, told Rude that “I’d always thought that solution might be something like three strikes you’re out.”
However, Rude said “the intent for me in this taskforce bill is not to restrict records that are currently available. I want to be really careful that we’re upholding the intent of the Public Records Act and so I think personally a three strikes rule would be too restrictive.”
The bill drew praise from several government advocates or entities, including Candice Bach with the Washington Association of Cities. She told the committee that “over the years city officials have talked about the impact and importance of our Public Records Act and ways we can strengthen it and make sure that we are open and transparent…while looking at what the costs are and the ways that can do it more efficiently and effectively. It does seem like a good time to pursue that kind of work again…about how can we improve the Public Records Act.”
Speaking also in favor of HB 2661, Washington Schools Risk Management Pool General Counsel Tyna Ek told the committee “I don’t I want to tell them that all of their requests are frivolous, but some of them are just really overly broad and expensive. We support the PRA but we think bringing that the stakeholders together is the right answer to addressing this problem.”
She added that with some request, “they don’t even need all of that information, because it costs them nothing. They start out with ‘Give us every document that’s X.’”
However, West, argued “the problem here is that school districts don t understand the Public Records Act very well. I agree that perhaps school districts may have a problem, but that could be addressed with better training, better procedures for responding to request, not by setting up a commission that is weighed to destroy the PRA.”
Similar sentiment was expressed by Mike Fancher, president of the Washington Coalition for Open Government. Speaking in opposition, he said that “modernizing would focus on improving technology and processes for getting things done. Instead, the bill seems more about limiting access than improving it.”
He added that the coalition has “found recurring problems, including agencies failing to properly maintain and organize records, open government training that is inadequate and often wrong, and some officials using technology to avoid disclosure rather than enhancing it. They need help, but that help can’t be at the expense of public access to public records.”
Open government advocate Jamie Nixon told the committee that “this bill is framed as a response to overly burdensome requests, and I understand that concern, particularly from schools that lack resources to pay for legal review. But, the solution to that problem is not less transparency. It’s more support.”
HB 2661 is scheduled for committee action on Feb. 4.
