Court supports open public records

Washington’s Public Disclosure Act requires more than “substantial compliance,” the state Court of Appeals says in a strong new affirmation of the open-government law.

“Administrative inconvenience or difficulty does not excuse strict compliance,” the Spokane branch of the court said in a recent opinion written by new Judge Debra Stephens.

The Spokane attorney replaced retiring Judge Ken Kato in May. Appointed by Gov. Chris Gregoire, Stephens is the second woman ever to serve on the court.

The first was Teresa Kulik, who joined Stephens – along with Judge John Schultheis – in striking down a Franklin County Superior Court judge’s ruling that the city of Mesa’s incomplete and sometimes tardy responses to voluminous disclosure requests were good enough.

Mesa, population 440, was bombarded with public disclosure requests by former Mayor Donna Zink and her husband, Jeff, after city officials decided in August 2002 to cancel the building permit for their unfinished house. Some residents had complained that the lingering fire-repair and remodeling project had become an eyesore.

By the city’s count, the Zinks filed 172 disclosure requests over 2 1/2 years. According to court documents, most of the requests pertained to the building permit dispute, but some also were filed in what the Zinks described as their “watchdog” role on behalf of other residents.

The Zinks complained in an April 2003 lawsuit that the city improperly denied or delayed many of their disclosure requests. But, Superior Court Judge William Acey ruled, strict compliance with the Public Disclosure Act was a “practical impossibility” because the city clerk’s office had only three to four workers. Acey rejected the Zinks’ claims on grounds that the city was in “substantial compliance.” He said the couple’s numerous requests “amounted to unlawful harassment.”

“There is a limit to the number of public requests an individual can make to a public agency,” Acey stated.

Wrong, the Court of Appeals said: The law requires strict compliance and gives no credit for a good-faith effort except in assessing the amount of damages to be awarded for violations. Threatening to sue City Clerk Teresa Standridge if she didn’t “look this up” or “do this just right” didn’t constitute harassment.

The appellate judges said Acey also was wrong when he said Mesa officials were “more than reasonable” in allowing the Zinks one hour a day to inspect public records. The law says public records must be available during customary office hours and at least from 9 a.m. to noon and from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.

The three-judge panel said Mesa officials were entitled to adopt “reasonable rules” to prevent undue interference with their other duties. However, the rules must be adopted before, not after, someone files a disclosure request – and the documents still have to be disclosed, the judges said.

Acey properly ruled the city was entitled to charge the Zinks for the time it took to copy documents, according to the appellate decision.

The Court of Appeals remanded the case to Acey for a determination on whether the city complied, not just substantially complied, in each of the issues cited in the Zinks’ lawsuit.

Acey must order the city to pay penalties and attorney fees to the Zinks after determining the extent of the violations, the appellate court ruled.