The Washington State Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling that keeps secret key information in the case of the 9-year-old boy who died of a peanut allergy once again raises troubling questions about exemptions to the state’s Public Records Act.

Mark Anderson, associate superintendent for Spokane Public Schools, said he was happy with the outcome that allows the district to keep under wraps certain documents, including the investigator’s interviews of witnesses after the death of Nathan Walters, who ate a cookie containing peanuts on a school field trip.

He agreed somewhat that government agencies could use the ruling to shield records, but said that was not the motivation of the district. Whether it was the primary goal is debatable, but the result was that the public still does not have a full explanation of what happened on that tragic day more than six years ago.

The most troubling aspect of this ruling is that it gives public officials a road map to shield legitimate public records based on self-interest and self-preservation, rather than on complying with the clear language of the law. In short, the public must accept the “trust us” proclamations.

It’s particularly grating in these cases that when government officials say “we” they don’t mean us. As in, “We, as a school district, have the same rights as any other individual who gets sued.” This ignores the fact that government officials represent us. That government attorneys are paid for by us. And it implies that by shielding us from knowledge, they’re doing us, rather than themselves, a favor.

It’s time for the Legislature to narrow the court’s overly broad interpretations of concepts such as “controversy” and “attorney-client privilege.”

As it stands now, the controversy exemption can be invoked at the first whiff of legal action. In this case, the district said the records should be shielded because Walters’ family had retained an attorney.

There was no lawsuit at the time of the newspaper’s request. But that no longer matters. Now the standard is whether there is an expectation of one. The result is that the more serious the matter, the more likely the public will remain in the dark. That makes it difficult for the public to evaluate the actions of public servants and hold them accountable.

As it stands now, attorney-client privilege can be invoked even if legal counsel was tangentially involved in information gathering. The paper sought the interview information culled by an investigator, just as it does when police gather information. But the court ruled that since attorneys hired the investigator, the exemption could be invoked.

It was clearly not the intent of the public to adopt these generous exemptions – and dozens of others that have arisen – when it voted overwhelmingly for the Public Records Act in 1972. In fact, the public was fed up with secrecy and dissembling.

The Legislature needs to step in and put we, the people – not we, the public officials – first.