Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

  |  

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Olympia / Media The Legislature Shouldn't Make It Harder to Get Public Records

Posted by on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Well, knock me over with a feather: I actually agree with the Seattle Times editorial board. What's more, not only do I think the Times is right, I disagree with Comrade Goldy over at Horse's Ass—and about a public-disclosure issue.

Today, the Times editorializes against a set of bills I wrote about as part of my legislative wrapup a few weeks ago that would make it harder to access public records. The first would allow government agencies to deny a public records request if the person making the request owed the agency money; the second would increase the cost of copying public records to as much as 25 cents per page; and the third would allow an agency to charge someone for copies even if the person didn't pick them up. All are sponsored by Sen. Darlene Fairley (D-41).

The Times writes:

These measures are particularly galling during a recession and a disturbing decrease in the corps of journalists who traditionally play watchdog over government. [...]

The worst of the bad bunch is SB 5250, which would increase the maximum per-page copying charge from 15 to 25 cents. That adds up — a 100-page document would cost $25. A friendly representative of a local Kinkos said Friday such a document would cost only $9 if brought to her shop.

Hardly seems right that public agencies would be making such a profit off documents to which citizens are entitled. Though municipal lobbyists suggest the higher fee would offset costs of staff time in fulfilling the request, that is expressly prohibited by the state's Open Records Act.

A better idea? Require cities, counties, ports and school districts to better manage their records. Why not make documents available by e-mail or copying them on to a disc — pennies a serving — even less if the requester provides the disc.

Goldy argues that the "many hours of staff time" it takes to fill records requests should be compensated, and argues that every single public record maintained by government agencies should be put in computer files for the public to sift through themselves. The logic is tortured: Government agencies provide a valuable service we should pay them for (sifting through records to fill requests), therefore we should get rid of that service entirely and make people who file records requests find the records they want themselves. Not to mention the fact that most agencies don't have a surplus of public-disclosure staff; in my experience, most government agencies only employ one public-disclosure officer. Is Goldy really arguing that we should eliminate that position from every government agency?

Goldy's right about one thing—the claim that government agencies are making a killing off copy charges is classic Seattle Times anti-government hoohah. However, the rest of the editorial is spot-on: The government has a responsibility to provide public records at a cost that's reasonable, and not to put up any unnecessary barriers to those records.

 

Comments (16) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
I thought the Times went bankrupt?

How are they going to pay even 25 cents a page?
Posted by Will in Seattle on February 10, 2009 at 2:47 PM
2
Maybe the 25 cents a page is a little high (or maybe, you could let customers copy themselves at a self serve copier if they wanted to pay less). But even if the charge should be a little cheaper, I can see no reason why anyone should have a problem with the other requirements. In the case of those who already owe $$: of course people should have to pay up before demanding more services that they likely won't ever pay for if they're already unwilling to pay what they owe. Why should the government provide a costly service for free to these individuals? And as for those who never pick up the records, what possible justification is there for them not to pay?? The agency has already incurred the copy machine/paper/personnel costs of copying the documents, and thus should be reimbursed. This is like saying that just because you didn't pick up a custom product that you had made specially for you and which cannot be useful to anyone else, you shouldn't have to pay for it! No way--in both cases, this just seems like people cheating the system. Why should taxpayers be picking up the tab for their unpaid or unused copies?
Posted by sara on February 10, 2009 at 3:03 PM
3
It's sloppy to assume that the costs for the State - who don't make copies in really high volumes and presumably pay state employee salaries and benefits -- is in anyway similar to the costs at Kinko's.
Posted by Martin H. Duke on February 10, 2009 at 3:19 PM
4
Bear in mind that government copying costs are not parallel to Kinko's in a very significant way: any agency that deals with personal information (like SSNs in police reports, or student information in educational records) has to copy records not once, but twice. Once to redact the personal information, and again so that the requestor can't just read through the black marker redaction and steal your SSN.
Posted by giantladysquirrels on February 10, 2009 at 3:44 PM
5
But they can steal it from your divorce decree.
Posted by Squirrels stealing your nuts on February 10, 2009 at 4:25 PM
6
all records need to be available for inspection. sometimes the search will provide hundreds of emails or report pages and only a few pages are wanted and those are the only pages the requester should have to pay for. most agencies in the city don't provide anything but electronic records - amazingly they have no notes of meetings or telephone messages only emails and reports. they avoid the spirit of public disclosure by not creating notes at meetings (they have a policy) or destroying hand written documents.

everything should be put on the net and made available for everyone to see, after redacting private info.

and if someone is fighting bills, they should not be denied the material needed to fight because they don't have the money or feel the agency needs to win a judgment first.

the oversight, public disclosure provides us all, is worth far more than the cost to the agencies.
Posted by McG on February 10, 2009 at 4:28 PM
7
@6 can I see your drug records?

Thanks!
Posted by your pervy neighbor snoop on February 10, 2009 at 5:46 PM
8
The Washington Public Records Act (PRA) is a series of laws designed to guarantee that the public has access to public records of government bodies at all levels in Washington.

The introduction to the statute explains the reason for the PRA: "The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created."

to what extent does excessive cost interfere with the clear intent and right of the people? This is also an excellent statement in how it so clearly illustrates the proper relationship between the governed and their government
Posted by yeah yeah yeah on February 10, 2009 at 6:13 PM
9
Costs should be reasonable to provide public access to records of those doing the public's business. Raising costs to 25 cents a page is another way to deny the public reasonable access to information. It should be kept at 15 cents a page.
Posted by Steve Zemke on February 10, 2009 at 6:51 PM
10
"A small dose of day-to-day realism: we only have so much time and energy, and we therefore have to prioritize what we spend our political/personal capital on. I am amazed that when their fellow citizens are dying in a war built on lies and being tossed out of their homes and jobs, some Americans worry more about access to public records. Just beyond me."
Posted by Arbiter of what you should spend your time on on February 10, 2009 at 6:59 PM
11
actually if I had drug records you could get them. if you have sex crime records, they would be available.

the major point of PD is not getting the public records of non-government people but rather public records of government business which would include the lies of war and other very relevant issues.

private citizens with the power of PD help keep the government in line.

so does the press

freedom of information, public disclosure, etc. are good for democracy.
Posted by McG on February 10, 2009 at 7:13 PM
12
oh arbiter, I support your right to protest foie gras and others the right to protest gay rights etc. etc.

public disclosure can be used in those efforts as well
Posted by McG on February 10, 2009 at 7:19 PM
13
Did Sonoma Foie Gras tell you that, Bethany? Really? The very same Sonoma Foie Gras for whom the torment of geese acts as a Soviet-style full-employment program said that? Amazing! Who could have predicted that the Sonoma Foie Gras would think so highly of the job that Sonoma Foie Gras is doing?

Like so many of her stupid credulous hack colleagues at our daily papers, Bethany Jean Clement fails to ask the obvious follow-up questions: Should the statement by a foie gras producer that their factory is humane be taken at face value? Is there any other evidence to the contrary out there?
Posted by Van Blathage on February 10, 2009 at 7:23 PM
14
@12, I am not protesting foie gras. I don't give a shit about it. But Erica and a bunch of her friends made a big whoopty-doo about how people should spend their time on the bigger issues. And I agree. I want her to stop wasting time on her pet issues and start focusing on bigger problems. I'm sick of these lazy bourgeois "journalists" sitting around sniping because Zipcar doesn't go to their neighborhood, or because somebody carted their kid around in a Chariot in the snow, or someone called Clinton a "bitch". It's a time waster, and not one of Erica's blathering posts has done anything to fix the bigger issues.
Posted by put up or shut up on February 10, 2009 at 7:29 PM
15
I don't think people realize that there are a lot of frivolous (or deliberately malicious) public records requests made for no other reason than to force public employees to do onerous searches and extracts (at public expense, mind you) when they have other work they need to be doing. In my particular job, we are frequently harassed by anti-union zealots who demand we provide email addresses of all employees in a particular classification to them, as a public records request. We are required to provide this information, but because we don't have a database that has both employee classification and email addresses in it (they're in completely separate systems), this requires manual, and time-consuming, compilation.

Now, the pollyanna idea here is to create another database, which contains both fields. Why? Because anti-union zealots insist on their right to harass and bombard employees in that particular classification with their anti-union spam? Creating and maintaining databases is not labor- (or resource-) neutral.

Your tax dollars are paying for public employees to satisfy the zealotry of (mostly) right-wing nutcases.
Posted by Nuisance Requests Stink on February 11, 2009 at 1:08 PM
16
1:09 shouldn't you be doing a PDR?

Posted by McG on February 11, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy