The Committee's full report including all of its recommendations is available here.

Governor Gregoire signed an executive order on December 3 proposing that the legislature eliminate the Sunshine Committee.

Here is a link to the list of eliminated boards and commissions.

The advice sheet provides five (5) factors for agencies to consider when managing the retention of public records created or received through social networking sites. These factors include determining whether the posts are public records (yes, if the posts are made or received in connection with the transaction of the agency’s public business). Determining whether the posts are simply copies of records that the agency is already retaining or whether the posts are primary records. Determining how long the posts will be retained and how the agency will retain the posts (especially if the posts are maintained by a third-party vendor). Finally, determining which business activities are appropriate for social networking, particularly if the agency is unable to manage the creation, receipt, and retention of the posts as public records.

Here's an update from the Open Records Blog -- a great blog that tracks state public records issues nation wide -- on the R-71 controversy.  The Post also provides Tim Eyman's perspective on the issue. 

Update 7/30

As noted by the Seattle Times, a Federal Judge has issued an injunction prohibiting the State from releasing the names of the persons who signed the R-71 petition.  According to the Times:

Judge Settle . . . gave what appears to be a nod to the strength of the referendum backers' case, writing that they "have sufficiently demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits" of their First Amendment claim, and "a reasonable likelihood of irreparable harm if the names are released."

Here is an editorial from the Yakima Herald on this ruling:  "Open records means just that -- so release the names on R-71"

Update 6/11

The Secretary of State's office has weighed in on this debate on its blog, "From Our Corner."  The post summarizes of Elections Director Nick Handy's position and captures the conflicts this issue raises:

State Elections Director Nick Handy notes the the state has long been committed to open records and transparency in government, but says he’s unhappy with the thought of the petition process being used as a weapon to dampen voters’ participation in their constitutional right of petition.

***

“Nobody is comfortable with releasing personal information in situations like this, but it is part of transparency in government,” Handy says. “We hope people will keep their cool.”

Almost everyone would agree that information on campaign donations should be public, and it is.  Likewise, almost everyone would agree that information about how an individual voter voted should be private, and it is.  Signing a petition seems to fall somewhere in between, but under current law, no privacy exists. 

Original Post 6/10

In this Seattle Times article, the author puts the spotlight on a new trend of publicizing the names of persons who sign petitions for initiatives and referenda.  The stated goal of this tactic is to foster conversations between those who sign a petition and their friends and family who oppose the initiative or referendum.  Critics say the real goal is to intimidate potential signers who don't want to be publicly associated with a controversial issue.  The article quotes the president of a special interest group as noting:

"They are using the public-disclosure laws to punish people for participating in the democratic process — a core right."

As the Internet brings the prospect of a more transparent government, this state and other governments will face new questions about privacy and fairness that weren't implicated when most public access was to pieces of paper. 

This situation developed because Alaska's transparency laws allow anyone to file Freedom of Information Act requests. While normally useful, in the hands of political opponents FOIA requests can become a means to bog down a target in a bureaucratic quagmire, thanks to the need to comb through records and respond by a strict timetable. ... Since Ms. Palin returned to Alaska after the 2008 campaign, some 150 FOIA requests have been filed and her office has been targeted for investigation by everyone from the FBI to the Alaska legislature.”

As bad as this may sound, at least Alaska law -- like the law in most states -- allows the state to charge for search time after giving each requester a taxpayer-subsidized five hours a month for free, which serves as a disincentive to anyone seeking to abuse the law by making large requests. Agencies in Washington, however, cannot charge for search time, which makes the Public Records Act an even more powerful weapon in this state for persons who may want to target an agency or official. And while the vast majority of requesters act in good faith, even one person can paralyze a city or other agency.

(Note, the editorial also highlights the numerous ethics complaints that have led to a half-million dollar attorney-fee bill, which also played a big factor in Palin’s decision to resign.)

Here is his email response (my questions are in black, his responses in red).  Essentially, Ford states that the content is the public record, not the "look and feel" version that actually would appear on the Web 2.0 site.  This addresses my biggest concern. 

And here is Russell Wood's response to the retention issues.  Again, Wood states that it is the content that is subject to retention (this is an edited version of the email).

The one remaining open issue is whether an elected official's personal blog becomes a public record if the official discussions agency business.  Agencies also have to use extreme caution if they accept comments to ensure that comments are not edited or removed in a way that would violate the First Amendment.  A clear policy is essential for this purpose. 

Here is Olympian reporter Brad Shannon's blog post on the topic.

Here are my earlier posts on the topic:

"To Blog or Not to Blog -- that is the question"

"Lauderdale city attorney tells politicians: Stay off Facebook"

"D'Amico wins open records suit against Jefferson County for Commissioner Sullivan's phone calls"  Port Townsend Leader

"Records show WWU hushing of information, criticism of student newspaper article" Bellingham Herald

"Monroe's business gets done in secret"  Everett Herald

Another topic at the conference, however, was about the use of blogs and Web 2.0 cites.  The presenter, Lakewood City Councilmember Walter Neary, has his own blog, Electing2Blog, Blogging by Elected Officials, dedicated to this topic. 

When some of the councilmembers who attended my sessions cautioned about the risks of blogging created by the PRA,  ... well here is Councilmember Neary's take "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Public Outreach." 

Here is another take on the exchange from the Olympia Time blog:  "The secret key to why city council members are told not to blog" 

Someone has also started a WIKI page on the topic entitled "Social Web handbook for Washington State local electeds"

I will post the questions I have asked Tim Ford, the AG Open Government Ombudsman, about the legality of this topic shortly. 

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s Memorandum For Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies provides a nice summary of what the presumption of openness means.  The Attorney General identifies three ingredients:

1. Only assert an exemption if nondisclosure serves the exemption’s public purpose.

2. When possible, redact exempt information rather than withhold an entire document.

3. Never assert an exemption merely to hide mistakes or because of abstract concerns.

Here is what the memo actual states:

             First, an agency should not withhold information simply because it may do so legally. I strongly encourage agencies to make discretionary disclosures of information. An agency should not withhold records merely because it can demonstrate, as a technical matter, that the records fall within the scope of a FOIA exemption.

             Second, whenever an agency determines that it cannot make full disclosure of a requested record, it must consider whether it can make partial disclosure. Agencies should always be mindful that the FOIA requires them to take reasonable steps to segregate and release nonexempt information. Even if some parts of a record must be withheld, other parts either may not be covered by a statutory exemption, or may be covered only in a technical sense unrelated to the actual impact of disclosure.

             At the same time, the disclosure obligation under the FOIA is not absolute. The Act provides exemptions to protect, for example, national security, personal privacy, privileged records, and law enforcement interests. But as the President stated in his memorandum, "The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears."
 

ORIGINAL POST

One way to tell a good public records law from a bad law is that a good law starts with a presumption that all records are open and then defines exceptions.  A bad law will presume the opposite and instead define what records have to be disclosed. 

Washington law has always included the presumption of disclosure.  Here is a story about South Dakota, which just amended its public records law to include the presumption of disclosure. 

Washington law codifies this presumption in two provisions of the Public Records Act:

RCW 42.56.550(1) provides "The burden of proof shall be on the agency to establish that refusal to permit public inspection and copying is in accordance with a statute that exempts or prohibits disclosure in whole or in part of specific information or records."

RCW 42.56.030 then heightens the burden an agency will have to meet before it can withhold a record by providing that the Act "shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed" to promote the Act's stated purpose of allowing the public to stay informed about government.   

The result of these two provisions is that an agency must disclose any public record, unless it can prove that under a narrow interpretation of a statutory exemption, the record is exempt from disclosure. 

As promised, here is a link to the briefs in City of Federal Way v. Koenig, which will require the Supreme Court to reconsider its 1986 decision that exempted courts from the Public Records Act.   This is one of two Public Records Act cases Foster Pepper will be arguing on June 9. 

Kentucky and West Virginia Courts:

The Chief Justice of the Kentucky Supreme Court is posed to issue new rules that may subject state court administrative records to Kentucky's open records law. 

The West Virginia Supreme Court has accepted review of a case that will determine whether the Justices' own emails are subject to the state's open records law. 

In Washington, the Supreme Court held in 1986 that courts are not "agencies" under the Public Records Act, making court records not subject to the PRA.  See Nast v. Michels, 107 Wn.2d 300 (1986). 

NOTE FOR FULL DISCLOSURE:  In a case set for oral argument before the Washington Supreme Court on June 9, 2009, Foster Pepper will be defending the Nast decision.  The appellant in the pending matter before the Court is arguing that Nast should be narrowly interpreted, making most court records subject to disclosure.  We will post links to the briefs in that case once the briefs are available on the Supreme Court website.

Washington's Public Records Act already mandates a penalty that includes attorney fees and a daily award.  RCW 42.56.550(4).  But there is no exception for reliance on legal advice -- or reliance on a prior court order.  As a result, governments are required to pay penalties from their public funds even when those governments act in good faith reliance on legal advice or on a court order.

For example, in West v. Thurston County, 144 Wn. App. 573, 183 P.3d 346 (2008), the County relied on a prior court order in another case providing that the same attorney-fee bills were work product when it told a requester those bills were exempt as work product pursuant to RCW 42.56.290.  After the lawsuit was filed, however, the Legislature amended the Public Records Act to clarify that attorney-fee bills were in fact subject to disclosure.  RCW 42.56.904.  As a result, the Court of Appeals ruled that the County had erred in withholding those records, and remanded for penalties – penalties that will be paid by the taxpayers of Thurston County.
 

The Arkansas legislature is considering a bill that would make all information about gun owners exempt from disclosure.  The Governor opposes the bill, but agrees some personal information (address, phone number, birth date) should be exempt.  As noted before on this blog, all handgun licensing information is exempt under Washington law. 

California :

City of San Diego public employees will be producing their calendars in response to a public records request, according to this article in the San Diego Union-Tribune.  The newspaper is also blogging about its efforts to obtain records and has created a database for the officials' calendars. 

Under Washington law, public employees' calendars are subject to disclosure, subject to any applicable exemptions.  One wrinkle in Washington law -- if the employee also includes personal items, then the agency may be able to redact the personal entries.  See RCW 42.56.230(2) & Yacobellis v. City of Bellingham, 55 Wn. App. 706, 712 (1989) (raising but not addressing issue of personal information on calendars).   But for public employees who want to ensure their privacy is protected, the better practice is to not add personal items to the employer's calendar. 

Kentucky and West Virginia Courts:

The Chief Justice of the Kentucky Supreme Court is posed to issue new rules that may subject state court administrative records to Kentucky's open records law. 

The West Virginia Supreme Court has accepted review of a case that will determine whether the Justices' own emails are subject to the state's open records law. 

In Washington, the Supreme Court held in 1986 that courts are not "agencies" under the Public Records Act, making court records not subject to the PRA.  See Nast v. Michels, 107 Wn.2d 300 (1986). 

NOTE FOR FULL DISCLOSURE:  In a case set for oral argument before the Washington Supreme Court on June 9, 2009, Foster Pepper will be defending the Nast decision.  The appellant in the pending matter before the Court is arguing that Nast should be narrowly interpreted, making most court records subject to disclosure.  We will post links to the briefs in that case once the briefs are available on the Supreme Court website.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has recently issued this memorandum for the implementation of President Obama's January 21 FOIA directions.  All of President Obama's efforts are nicely highlighted in this editorial in The Daily News, from Longview, Washington. 

A recent study of freedom of information laws throughout the world found that the United States has one of the highest ranked freedom of information laws in the world.  This was before President Obama's recent initiatives.

California:

In a recent article, the Sacramento Bee, reported on the open government issues that arise from a mayor using "volunteer" private help.  The article notes that under California law, it is "unclear about whether the emails, text messages, voicemails and other writings produced on non-City equipment and property are public records."

Under Washington law, every record that (1) is related to the conduct of government and (2) is "prepared, owned, used, or retained" by a government is a public record. RCW 42.56.010(2).  Thus records related to the conduct of government that are located on non-public agency equipment will be still be public records as long as the records are used by the agency. 

Maryland:

The Maryland general assembly (its lower house) has just passed new legislation that purports to subject the Maryland legislature to the state's public records and open meetings laws. According to at least one legislator, however, the changes actually make the legislature more opaque. For public records, the new legislation would exempt all emails to and from legislators.  Under current law, some of these emails may have to be disclosed.  For meetings, legislation allows party caucuses, budget meetings between party leaders and lunch meetings with the governor to remain private. These exceptions authorized by the new law may allow legislators to make important decisions outside of the public eye. 

In Washington, the laws permit even greater legislative secrecy.  As noted in this post, the Washington Legislature has defined "public records" to exclude all of a legislator's records. Likewise, the Legislature has excluded itself from the definition of "public agency" in the Open Public Meetings Act, meaning that none of its meetings are subject to that law.

But there is no simple “legislative exemption” in the PRA. Instead, you have to look at two statutes. 

It starts with the definition of “public record” in RCW 42.56.010(2). That definition provides that “public records means legislative records as defined in RCW 40.14.100.” 

The definition of “legislative record” in RCW 40.14.100 then expressly excludes “reports or correspondence made or received by or in any way under the personal control of the individual members of the legislature.” In other words, records held by individual legislators, including their emails, are not “legislative records” and thus not “public records.”

Washington law does not require the Legislature to review Public Records Act exemptions.  Instead, the Public Records Act includes a provision that has created the Sunshine Committee, which has been tasked to review all 365+ exemptions.  The committee's unanimous recommendations -- contained in SB 5295 -- are on target to pass this session.  But there are also two bills before the Legislature that  would either suspend or eliminate the Sunshine Committee:  SB 5588 and  SB 5994.    

This lawsuit follows a Ninth Circuit decision upholding a civil rights lawsuit by a police officer who sued the city he worked for after his text messages sent from his city-issued phone were released, even though the text messages were "public records."  Quon v. Arch Wireless, 529 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2008). 

The key fact in the Quon case was that the City had created a reasonable expectation of privacy by failing to monitor text messages or limit personal use.  If a public agency allows the personal use of text messages, or even emails, the agency must make sure employees know those messages will be monitored to ensure the employees do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those messages.