Our View: Lawmakers should side with public on records
As the Washington Legislature settles in for a 2009 session dominated by budget challenges, other important issues will compete for its attention, too. One familiar topic will be the defense of openness in government, a cause that requires vigilance.
As if to underscore that point, the Washington Supreme Court last week issued an opinion that should get the attention of state and local government agencies, as well as lower courts, that underestimate the law’s commitment to open public records.
By a 6-3 majority, the justices firmly told a lower court that it was wrong to go easy on King County over its “grossly negligent noncompliance” following a citizen request for records related to a $300 million ballot issue.
This case is relevant to this legislative session because one measure to be considered in Olympia may result in a state agency that would handle complaints about wrongful denial of access to records.
The idea would be to give residents an alternative to investing in lawyers and other expenses that make people think twice before pursuing their rights.
Pending legislation would authorize a study of the concept. King County resident Armen Yousoufian may wish it had been in place 12 years ago.
In 1997, when King County was asking voters to approve financing for a new football stadium, Yousoufian asked County Executive Ron Sims’ office for materials related to studies that supported the county’s decision. Courts have concluded the request could have been met in five days, but King County dragged it out for years – long beyond when the information might have helped Yousoufian make his arguments about the referendum.
The trial judge fined the county only $15 a day for its blatant misconduct, well toward the bottom of the range specified in law – from $5 to $100 a day. That may have added up to a substantial total – $123,780 – but that just illustrates how relentless King County was in prolonging the violation. While the Supreme Court declined to specify exactly what fine would be satisfactory, the consensus in the six-member majority was near the top of the range.
It’s now been more than a decade since the Yousoufian case began. Few residents would have pursued it as diligently as he did, and few would have, or could have, secured the resources and devoted the time it has taken. Government agencies know that, of course, and those that find comfort in secrecy count on it. And, even when found in the wrong, they’ve often been able to rely on courts to be gentle.
An agency where aggrieved citizens could take their complaints about records access without having to bankroll extended litigation may well strip recalcitrant agencies of their defensive strategies. The potential gain is at least worth exploring.
It wouldn’t be a surprise if local governments object, as they often do when residents look for affirmation of government openness, but lawmakers should stand with the citizens.