Committee passes public disclosure bill
OLYMPIA – A Senate committee on Tuesday passed a modified version of a public disclosure bill that Attorney General Rob McKenna proposed – but some critics say the Senate version only makes it more difficult for the public to get access to records.
Sen. Jim Kastama, chairman of the Government Operations & Elections Committee, put forward a substitute bill that expands the language of an attorney-client privilege that most open government advocates oppose.
Governments that don’t comply could be penalized by fines ranging from $5 to $500 under Kastama’s bill; McKenna’s measure puts the lowest fine at $50. Kastama’s measure also allows agencies to require a deposit based on the cost of providing copies, providing that deposit does not exceed 10 percent of the cost. The substitute bill passed the committee on a 9-0 vote, with one lawmaker abstaining.
“I think the committee today has bent to the interests of the government lawyers and the establishment and has not given adequate consideration to the interests of their constituents,” said Michele Earl-Hubbard, incoming president of the Washington Coalition for Open Government, and a lawyer for several news organizations. “This will become the great hiding place for information government doesn’t want released.”
But Kastama, D-Puyallup, said the language of the attorney-client privilege needed to be carefully worded to prevent future litigation on the issue. McKenna’s original proposal called for one definition of what constituted attorney-client privilege when it comes to the public disclosure act: only communication between a public official or employee and an attorney in which legal advice is offered is exempt. But Kastama said he was concerned that McKenna’s interpretation ignored previous case and common law on the issue, and he wanted to address that.
In a written statement, McKenna said he was happy to see the bill get through committee, but was disappointed with the amendment.
Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, the prime sponsor of the original bill, said the language was “a work in progress.”
“I think people are still grappling with the attorney-client privilege provisions and trying to strike the appropriate balance in terms of what should be protected and what should be disclosed,” she said. “I don’t think we’re at the final point on the bill.”