Consider the following: A wetland is illegally filled in on a site where Wal-Mart wants to build a controversial supercenter. It’s possible the city’s traffic department did it while improving a nearby street, but nobody seems to know for sure.

Neighbors and the media would probably want to look at city records to see what happened. But what if the city refused to turn over those records, citing attorney-client privilege?

It’s important to note that this is a hypothetical scenario. A wetland was mysteriously filled in on such a site in Spokane, but the case has not sparked a public records controversy.

However, a similar circumstance has unfolded in Seattle and it shines a spotlight on the absurdity of the attorney-client dodge when it comes to refusing public records requests. And it shows why the public should care.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer sought records from the city of Seattle after it was busted for illegally filling in a wetland on city-owned property. The city’s act was in clear violation of federal law.

The city hired a wetlands expert to help them out of the jam. The information the paper sought mostly consisted of communications between the consultant and city engineers. The city designated those records an “attorney work product” and refused the request.

Most of the information was not sent or received by an attorney, but municipalities have come to broadly interpret a 2004 state Supreme Court decision that protects information that might have legal implications.

“We have the same rights as a private entity would,” Assistant City Attorney Mary Perry told the P-I.

In short, if the city had not broken the law, the request might have been granted. It should be easy to see how this would impede any watchdog role the public or the media could play in such a case.

While in some instances it might be wise to run government like a business, it isn’t OK to run government as a business. Government attorneys are paid for by the public. They shouldn’t be used as shields to hide information from the public – for whom they work.

The intent of Washington’s public records law is clear:

“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. The public records subdivision of this chapter shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy.”

The wetlands case is another example of why the state needs a public records law that narrows the use of exemptions.

Unfortunately, legislation that would’ve done that has been strangled in the House Judiciary Committee after municipalities testified against it.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Toby Nixon, R-Kirkland, says he will try again next year. In the meantime, will municipalities provide more examples of abuse or will they begin to respect the intent of the law?