At first glance, an 11-month performance audit suggests Washington’s cities, counties and state agencies respond pretty well to requests for public records. But the test to which the state Auditor’s Office put 30 selected entities was hardly rigorous.

From November 2006 through September 2007, people working for the office submitted 10 records requests each to 10 cities, 10 counties and 10 state agencies. The requests were for documents that were likely to exist at the specified office, were readily identifiable and posed no great burden to retrieve. As long as replies were “close to being responsive to the request,” they were deemed satisfactory.

Most agencies – which included Spokane County and the cities of Spokane and Spokane Valley – performed satisfactorily on most of the requests. But considering the purposely modest demands, why weren’t they perfect?

Washington voters used the initiative process in 1972 to force public meetings and records into the open. In the years since, elected officials have eroded that accomplishment. An original list of 10 allowable exemptions to openness has grown to more than 300.

Fortunately, that expanding list is now under review by a special “sunshine committee.” Meanwhile, state Attorney General Rob McKenna’s office has compiled a set of model rules to help government offices across the state comply with the law.

But some entities are predisposed to resist. Among the 10 requests presented to the city of Spokane in the recent audit was one asking for out-of-state travel records from the Police Department. The records never were produced, presumably because guidance needed from a city attorney never came through.

The draft report on the performance audit notes that the city of Spokane believes letting the public see public records is an unfunded mandate. The city’s legislative agenda calls for weakening state disclosure requirements.

Across the state, meanwhile, Pierce County officials refused a request by the auditors for a follow-up interview with the county’s public records coordinator. In contrast with this pattern, Gov. Chris Gregoire signed legislation setting up a searchable Web site that will make it easier for the public to obtain details of the state budget. But the same legislative session that produced that welcome work rejected a proposal to require audio recordings of executive sessions in which government bodies deal behind closed doors with matters specifically exempted from the Open Meetings Act. How can the public be sure the secret proceedings confine themselves to exempt areas? That’s why recordings, which could be reviewed by a judge in the face of credible challenges, are necessary.

Clearly, many public officials have not adopted what McKenna’s model rules encourage: a “culture of compliance.”

Things could be worse, perhaps. The 30 entities subjected to the recent audit could have failed miserably despite the benign test. But things could be – and should be – much, much better.