The Local Records Committee was created by Chapter 41.14 RCW and its 3 members are the State Archivist and representatives of the State Auditor and Attorney General offices. The Committee approved on December 3, 2015 a new records retention schedule for Washington State local law enforcement agencies. These changes take effect immediately. The modifications to
The Washington State Office of the Attorney General has issued a new addition of its Open Government Resource Manual. The 2015 manual provides information on the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), Chapter 42.30 RCW, and the Public Records Act (PRA), Chapter 42.56 RCW (through October 1, 2015).
Click here for a PDF version of …
American cities possess a treasure trove of information about their residents, employees, and infrastructure. As state and local governments come under increasing pressure to project greater transparency, cities are beginning to open the doors to their data like never before. Recently, a team of multidisciplinary researchers affiliated with the University of Washington conducted one of …
A Washington State Court of Appeals recently held that an inmate’s public records lawsuit against the State of Washington Department of Corrections (“DOC”) was time-barred, and therefore properly dismissed. Johnson v. Wash. State Dep’t of Corrections, Case No.40831-7-II, 2011 WL 5345375 (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 8, 2011).
Inmate Robert Johnson’s claim concerned the DOC’s Extended Family Visiting policy (“EFV”). The EFV policy allows an offender to receive private visits from family. Under early versions of the policy, inmates could participate in the EFV program only if they had a “positive prognosis of release”, that is if they would outlive their sentence. Johnson was ineligible for participation in the EFV program, and filed a complaint in federal district court in 2005. The DOC subsequently changed its policy as of June 8, 2006 (though not as a result of Johnson’s claims), eliminating the “positive prognosis of release” requirement.
The Colorado Supreme Court recently held that the Denver Post could not obtain records from the personal cell phone of former Colorado Governor Bill Ritter. Denver Post Corp. v. Ritter, —P.3d —, 2011 WL 2449325 (Colo. 2011). The Court found that the newspaper did not clearly state a claim that the cell phone bills were public records under the Colorado Open Records Act (“CORA”).
Governor Ritter had a practice of using two cell phones. The first phone was a state-paid Blackberry, which Ritter used almost exclusively for email. The Governor paid for the second phone, which he used for both personal calls and calls he made in his role as Governor.
In February, thousands of protestors, including many teachers, attended rallies in Wisconsin’s capitol to protest Governor Scott Walker’s proposed limits on collective bargaining for public workers. As a result, schools were closed for a day or more in many districts. Now conservative groups have filed public records requests asking school districts across the state to release the names of teachers who “called in sick” during the protests.
Many districts have complied, but the Madison School District (“District”), which had four days of closures in February, has denied several public records requests. As reported by the Wisconsin State Journal, the District is concerned that the release of the teachers’ names could “risk the safety of teachers and students, and disrupt morale and the learning environment in schools.” The requesting groups deny that the information will be used to harm or harass teachers. However, the District’s counsel believes otherwise, citing “a number of threats” made against board members, administrators and district employees as a result of teachers’ participation in the protests.
The Libertarian group Freedom Foundation has recently filed suit against Washington Governor Christine Gregoire, alleging that the Governor withheld public records under an “Executive Privilege” exemption not found in the text of Washington’s Public Records Act (“PRA”), 42.56 RCW.
According to the Foundation’s website, the suit was commenced after a member of the Foundation requested documents from the Governor’s Office in April 2010, including records dealing with “medical marijuana legislation, Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement proposals, and the Columbia River hydro system.” The complaint seeks production of the requested records (some of which were withheld or redacted), attorneys’ fees and penalties for violating the PRA. The complaint only addresses the Governor’s response to the April 2010 request; however the Freedom Foundation has also alleged that since 2007, Gregoire has used the executive privilege 500 times in efforts to withhold records.
The latest public records decision from the U.S. Supreme Court has put Western Washington on the map. The Court held 8-1 that Navy maps showing ammunition stockpiles at Indian Island (in Jefferson County, near Port Townsend) could not be withheld from disclosure under Exemption 2 of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Exemption 2 allows an entity to withhold records related to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.
In Milner v. Department of the Navy, the Navy argued that release of the maps would threaten public safety; the maps depict distances where damage could result from hypothetical explosions in buildings where weapons, ammunition and explosives are stored. But as reported by the Kitsap Sun, public safety is the very reason the maps were requested by local activist Glen Milner, who wanted information about whether his community might be endangered by the ammunition supply.
The Port of Portland did not have to disclose a joint defense agreement among the lawyers for several parties potentially responsible for cleanup of the Portland Harbor Superfund Site. A public interest group sought disclosure of the agreement under Oregon’s Public Records Act (“PRA”). The trial court and the Court of Appeals held that the agreement was exempt from disclosure under ORS 192.502(9)(a). Port of Portland v. Oregon Ctr. for Envtl. Health, 238 Or. App. 404 (Or. Ct. App. 2010. The Oregon exemption covers “public records or information the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted or otherwise made confidential or privileged under Oregon Law.” The exemption encompasses materials that are subject to the attorney-client and work product privileges codified in Oregon’s Evidence Code, including “confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendering of professional legal services” and communications “by the client or the client’s lawyer to a lawyer representing another in a matter of common interest.” OEC 503(2). Despite the public interest group’s protestations that the agreement did not fit within the exemption, the Court held otherwise. The Court held the agreement was exempt from disclosure under Oregon’s PRA as a confidential legal communication generated as a matter of common interest among lawyers representing the parties potentially responsible for the Superfund site.
Over the next two weeks, I will be out of the office for various open government trainings. During this time, will not be posting as often as I do currently, but certainly expect to have much to discuss when I return.