Common sense says the emails of the Washington State Legislature should be public records, and consequently available to the public. Especially with how broad and expansive Washington’s general public records statute is (and applies to the other state and local government agencies).
Over the weekend, the Tacoma News Tribune ran a wire story about the restrictiveness of legislative records. The Associated Press (who wrote the article) investigated public records in the Washington State and were denied email records of legislators.
I wrote about this issue in Jan. 2016 on my constitutional law blog, IntermediateScrutiny.com. In that article I argued that Washington’s separate more restrictive public records law just for the Washington State Legislature is unconstitutional.
Continue reading Newspaper Has Troubles With Legislative Records
The state of Washington uses two different public records laws. If an individual is looking for records concerning the Washington State Legislature then the Legislative Records Act applies. Records sought from any other state or local agency is governed by the Public Records Act.
This article will focus on the law itself. On my Intermediate Scrutiny blog, I have argued the Legislative Records law is facially unconstitutional, but that is beyond the scope of this article. This article is just to provide an introduction into Washington Legislative Records.
[U]nless the context requires otherwise, “legislative records” shall be defined as correspondence, amendments, reports, and minutes of meetings made by or submitted to legislative committees or subcommittees and transcripts or other records of hearings or supplementary written testimony or data thereof filed with committees or subcommittees in connection with the exercise of legislative or investigatory functions… — Wash. Rev. Code § 40.14.100.
Continue reading Washington State Legislative Records
There appears to be at times a chasm between how the Washington Legislature and the Washington courts interpret the scope of the Public Records Act (“PRA”).
In my previous post, I reviewed a recent Washington State Court of Appeals decision regarding how the courts evaluate whether an organization is a functional equivalent of a government agency for purposes of the PRA. In that case a private group of citizens wanted to obtain records about the health and well-being of the elephants at the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle. The management of the zoo and the property of the zoo was contracted to a private group called the Woodland Park Zoo Society for a period of 20 years. Since the government funded the Zoo still and had minimal control over the operations, the Washington Court of Appeals addressed the question of whether the Zoo under private direction is the functional equivalent to a government agency.
The functional equivalent test is used to determine if the PRA applies or not “[b]ecause the Legislature did not clearly intend to include or exclude hybrid agencies from the [PRA] and no Washington case law speaks to the issue.”
The problem, as I see it, is the rigid factors of the functional equivalent test do not seem to coincide with the broad intent of the PRA to promote government accountability. Let me explain what I mean by that.
Judicial application of the Telford factors is more narrow and rigid, rather than broad and liberally construed. On the surface, this does not seem to stem from the four Telford factors themselves, but how the courts have chosen to narrowly apply them.
I think the Telford factors are a reasonable way of judging whether the PRA should apply to a quasi-governmental organization, as long as the analysis of the factors is based upon the Washington Legislature’s intent that the PRA should be broadly construed. The current analysis does not seem to be centered on the intent the PRA should be broadly construed.
Continue reading Washington Public Records Quasi-Government Agency Test