Inside Opinion

What's on the minds of Tacoma News Tribune editorial writers

NOTICE: Inside Opinion has moved.

With the launch of our new website, we've moved Inside Opinion.
Visit the new section.

The phantom loophole in state records law

Post by Kim Bradford on Aug. 17, 2009 at 8:02 pm |
August 17, 2009 8:02 pm

This editorial will appear in Tuesday’s print edition.



Washington’s open records law is far from absolute. Over the years, lawmakers have granted more than 300 exceptions to its broad mandate for public disclosure.


But the common theme among most of those exemptions is that they reside explicitly in state law. Government agencies and citizens may not always agree on whether an exemption should apply, but at least they are both reading from the same page.


Not so with the nebulous "privilege" invoked by the Legislature and governor. In at least three publicized instances this year – and perhaps more lesser-known ones – the legislative and executive branches have claimed an immunity that appears nowhere in statute.



The latest case was in response to a request made by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation for records pertaining to Gov. Chris Gregoire’s executive order on climate change. The governor’s office initially withheld some documents based on "executive privilege."


The basis for the denial: a 2006 Snohomish County Superior Court decision that created an executive privilege for written communications between the governor and members of the governor’s staff.


That’s the same case that the Department of Revenue cited earlier this year for delaying the release of records about tax increase proposals it had analyzed at the request of state lawmaker s. The agency stalled to give lawmakers time to decide whether they would invoke "legislative privilege."


Lawmakers eventually turned over the documents. So did Gregoire earlier this month after the EFF challenged her office’s use of executive privilege. But both the Legislature and the governor said that they reserve the right to assert their special exception to state records laws in the future.


Here’s the problem: The privilege they assert is largely untested in this state. The Snohomish County judge ruled that the constitutional separation of powers prevented the judiciary from demanding access to the deliberative process of policy makers. But when the state Supreme Court had the opportunity to weigh in on the matter, it declined.


Who knows what the state’s highest court will decide when squarely asked if legislative or executive privilege exists – if the question ever goes before the court. Lawmakers and the governor certainly don’t appear eager to press the issue.


In the meantime, "privilege" looks a whole lot like the rabbit that gets pulled out of lawyers’ and records keepers’ hats when they’d rather not disclose something.


The governor and Legislature, if truly convinced that constitutional principles give them greater leeway to disregard the state’s public records laws, would write the exemptions in statute for everyone to see. But that would invite a public debate that elected officials know they would lose.

Categories:
What's coming
*
The News Tribune now uses Facebook commenting on selected blogs. See editor's column for more details. Commenters are expected to abide by terms of service for Facebook as well as commenting rules for thenewstribune.com. Report violators to webmaster@thenewstribune.com.