Endorsements and editorials are made solely by the ownership of this newspaper. As is the case at most newspapers across the nation, The Spokesman-Review newsroom and its editors are not a part of this endorsement process. (Learn more.)

Editorial: Public records fees should match cost of meeting requests

Fri., Feb. 27, 2015

When voters adopted the Public Records Act in 1972, all government documents were on paper. Now, most are created electronically, and most who request them expect free delivery by email. The digital revolution has changed the landscape, and government agencies have turned to the Legislature for help.

The number of records and requests has increased dramatically in recent years. Every email, sound recording, video file and social media post is a potential public record, and the number of citizens filing large-scale requests has risen. As a result, state and local agencies, including school districts, say they’re being overwhelmed.

Those seeking paper records can be charged the cost of copying, which tends to limit high-volume requests. But the law doesn’t cover electronic records, and some citizens have exploited the loophole. Nearly every county has a story of citizens peppering agencies with requests. Some are fishing for information; some are getting revenge for perceived bureaucratic slights. While the media have been trained to target their requests, regular citizens have not.

The Legislature is weighing a bill, HB 1684, that would permit agencies to charge for electronic records. We think this, as with the law enforcement-backed body camera bill, needs more study. HB 1684 establishes a per-megabyte guideline for assessing charges to the public. But this is a clumsy metric, because video and sound files are larger than word files. As a result, those requests would cost more, even though they may take no more effort to produce.

The bill would also allow agencies to collect down payments for large requests that are delivered incrementally. This seems reasonable, because it helps gauge whether a request is serious, rather than an act of harassment. However, we’d like to see the issue get further scrutiny to make sure there aren’t unintended consequences.

The Seattle Police Department is a prime example of an agency that was inundated with requests – from one citizen. The demands became so onerous, the department decided to slow the rollout of body cameras. Then it hired the requester – a technology expert – to help it organize and archive its digital records, with the goal of putting more records online as a matter of routine.

That experiment could become a model other agencies could adopt for making more records readily available to citizens, who can conduct their own searches or be provided a quick electronic link. As open government proponents have pointed out, agencies could take many steps under the current law to ease the burden of public records requests. Instead, they reflexively clamp down and turn to lawmakers for relief.

The Public Records Act may need updating to reflect the digital era, but not before the government fully explores its options and finds a more rational way to charge for electronic records.