Revamp of WA public records rules nears completion

Washington officials hope to issue new recommendations by summer’s end for how governments release public records, with the goal of speeding up disclosure.

Over 2,000 agencies are subject to the state’s Public Records Act, which voters approved via ballot initiative in 1972. The Legislature has revised it numerous times since, adding many exemptions. The rules Attorney General Nick Brown is proposing don’t change the law, but instead serve as a guide for state and local governments on how to comply.

The rule changes come as the time taken to fulfill requests has been rising, and local government staff are crunched under the weight of increasing demand for records.

A survey of 236 entities subject to the law found they received 484,000 requests for records in 2024, up from 383,000 in 2019, according to a report from the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee. In 2019, it took 15 days on average for agencies to provide records from the date of the request. In 2024, that was up to 24 days, the audit found.

The agencies spent $128 million responding to requests. They also reported 113 court cases against them alleging violations of state public records statutes.

Proposed changes

The most fundamental shift with the newly proposed rules would be in how records officials prioritize requests. Brown has recommended triaging public disclosure requests so simple asks for one document can be processed ahead of complex requests seeking, for example, thousands of pages or hard-to-find records. 

Under the current system, narrower requests can sit for months, even years, while records officers deal with difficult ones on a first-come, first-served basis. 

The proposed rules push agencies to provide records within five business days if the request is for a “single, specific, available, identifiable record.” Five days is the deadline for agencies to provide an initial response.

The rules also tell governments to “consider if the requestor has identified a reason that time is of the essence for the production of the records and if it is reasonable to produce the records in the time frame provided by the requestor.” For example, a reporter on a tight deadline. If not possible, the records officer should work with the requestor to identify and prioritize specific records that can be provided quicker, the proposed guidance says. 

An earlier draft called for doing this if it was “practicable,” not “reasonable,” which some open government advocates consider too subjective. 

If records are held on personal electronic devices, employees should transfer them to work accounts within five business days. In “unusual circumstances,” they could have more leeway. 

In some cases, governments can inform people named in records about the requests, which allows them to seek a court order to prevent the information’s release. These notices can slow disclosure.

A previous version of the proposed rule changes would’ve raised the bar for notifying these third parties, so the trigger would’ve been if disclosure “may substantially and irreparably damage any person or vital governmental function.” The latest iteration walks this back, stating that the trigger is if the records “may affect rights of others.”

Both earlier and current versions of the rules say “an agency should have a reasonable belief that the records are arguably exempt from disclosure” before giving notice to people who may be affected. 

Overall, open government advocates are pleased with the proposed rules, but still see room for improvement. 

Local officials are worried about the potential added workload and liability.

This revision process has been ongoing since 2024, under then-Attorney General Bob Ferguson. It started with news organizations, including The Seattle Times, petitioning for revisions to address lengthy delays in journalists receiving records. The Standard signed on in support of media outlets’ comments on the latest proposed rules.

“The petition was born out of our frustration as reporters and editors about a falling off on the part of governmental entities in responding to our requests,” said Rowland Thompson, representing the Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington and the Washington State Association of Broadcasters, in a hearing on the rules this week. 

“We think that the proposed rules would improve the compliance with the act, and should be adopted as soon as possible,” Thompson added.

Mixed reactions

The third-party disclosure rules remain a sticking point for news organizations pushing for changes. Seattle Times Executive Editor Michele Matassa Flores argued that while the proposal is an improvement over the status quo, it “will still encourage fruitless lawsuits that waste the resources of everyone involved.” She said news outlets are dealing with a tide of these lawsuits seeking to block the release of records.

“These cases are almost always without merit and prove unsuccessful, but only after months and sometimes years of delays and legal bills that threaten grave danger to news organizations already facing existential financial crises,” Matassa Flores said in this week’s hearing, citing one case that cost The Times $60,000 in legal fees. 

Additionally, the timeline for transferring public records from private devices to government systems should be more like two days, not five, said Colette Weeks, executive director of the Washington Coalition for Open Government.

Cities fear the proposal will force records officers to judge what requests are simple versus complex, and which are more urgent. 

“This could really have requestors pitted against one another for the limited time and resources that are available, and put a records officer in the position of trying to arbitrate over those questions, just really creating more liability,” said Candice Bock, director of government relations for the Association of Washington Cities.

The local government officials who handle record requests had other issues.

One city clerk said they need flexibility to provide records efficiently. 

“Requiring agencies to follow a prescribed triage process could unintentionally reduce their ability to provide timely and equitable service to all requestors,” said Cassidy Miller, the deputy city clerk in Issaquah.

There are resource concerns, too. The Lake Stevens School District, for example, spent 700 hours last year responding to disclosure requests, said Superintendent Mary Templeton. She expects this to tick up closer to 1,000 hours under the new guidance.

“We will do our duty,” Templeton said. “But we’ll ask for some sort of funding relief for that, so it doesn’t become yet another unfunded mandate.”

A previous proposal was met with mixed reviews last fall. The attorney general’s office incorporated that feedback into the latest version, which had been open for written comment since mid-May. Also, since then, the agency added its first chief transparency counsel.