It’s hardly news when government agencies flout the intent of public-records laws, but it is distressing to see legal decisions that buttress their cynical games.

A case in point is online journalist Tim Connor’s request to see documents relating to the River Park Square project. Connor first asked for extensive records in 2000, under the state Public Records Act. The city held back 238 documents, saying they were protected by attorney-client privilege.

When bondholders in the project filed a federal lawsuit, the city whittled the list of withheld documents to 111. After another party filed an RPS lawsuit, the city released all but 11 documents.

The question remains: Why didn’t the city release the records to Connor when he asked?

Connor filed suit in Superior Court for attorney fees and $740,000 in penalties against the city for wrongfully refusing his request. State law provides for such penalties if plaintiffs can show that their actions led to the release of the records. He lost that case and a subsequent appeal. It is now in front of the state Supreme Court.

The city says Connor’s lawsuit was rendered moot when it released the documents. But if that argument passes legal muster, then this case has exposed a gigantic sinkhole that severely undermines the state’s public records laws.

Connor tried to work with the city for 18 months to get the records. Clearly, he was not going to get them without suing. Even though he did eventually sue, the city claims it was the other lawsuits that shook loose the records.

The danger of letting such a precedent stand should be obvious. An agency can avoid punishment by pointing to some other action that compelled them to disclose. Similarly, an agency can wait until the eve of a public-records trial to disclose and then claim the case is moot.

Connor had to wait more than two years for the records. That’s a mockery of the state’s Public Records Act.

This case brings to mind the arguments made by Mark Tapscott of the Heritage Foundation in a column that ran in the The Spokesman-Review on June 1. In it, he criticized the U.S. Justice Department’s legal opinion that attorney fees cannot be recouped in public-records cases unless the plaintiff wins a court case. So, if a foot-dragging agency reverses course and turns over documents, that’s not enough to trigger fines and legal fees. The records requester must win a court case, says the Justice Department.

Of course, any agency can head off such a victory by simply disclosing before a verdict.

This legal trend is troubling. It bars average citizens, because it forces them to spend a huge amount with little hope of recouping it, even when they prevail. And it removes accountability, because agencies know they will rarely be punished.

The state Supreme Court should buck the trend and strike a blow for open government.