Orignally, I wanted to start to dive deep into the British Columbia news. But a new turn in the press pass saga and the Washington Coalition for Open Government’s research made me turn for home. Especially as I like to turn in Beehivs below 2,000 words with few exceptions. With that, let’s get started.
Table of Contents
Requestor Ligitation Abnormal in This Washington…
From Washington Coalition for Open Government is this new post:
Many claims are easily debunked, and you can expect to see refutations on this page. We do so in the spirit of encouraging fact-based policy debates that lead to good transparency policies.
Today we tested this claim: Agencies in Washington state are distracted by a rising tide of public records lawsuits.
There is no rising tide. Public records lawsuits are rare.
We analyzed seven complete years of data compiled by Washington state’s Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee.
More than 200 agencies reported to the committee how many records requests they received, opened and closed annually between 2018 and 2024. The agencies also reported how many public records lawsuits were filed against them.
The rate was one lawsuit per 3,927 requests. Expressed another way, the reporting agencies over seven years had 2.56 lawsuits per 10,000 records requests.
Either way, that’s no lawsuit epidemic.
Yet we saw in the comments to the Attorney General’s Model Rules for Public Records Act around two dozen references to lawsuits or litigation. One may note I’m using employment position and not names below to keep this professional and about the issues. With that, for example, the Public Records Officer for the Mukilteo School District fumigated to the Attorney General’s Office,
Requiring the time period for inspection of records to be “an agreed period” is not a workable standard for public agencies. The agency and requestor may not reach agreement on this period, creating an untenable situation. This change will inevitably lead to more litigation under the Act.
Another commentator for Olympic Educational Service District 114 (OESD 114) shared,
A requestor may choose to file a lawsuit against a district or agency and receive monetary compensation for any part of the law that may not have been perfectly followed (i.e. request wasn’t acknowledged within five days or all required details were not included in the 5-day letter, or fulfillment was missing one page of a responsive document), sometimes resulting in significant cost to the district/agency in addition to the cost of fulfillment already incurred.
These comments ignore that one lawsuit regarding the Public Records Act per 3,927 requests in Washington State translates into a low risk of public records litigation over imperfect compliance. Consider this a begnning of analysis into the comments into the model rules. That shared, we also do have a federal access lawsuit to cover…
Amended Complaint in the Press Pass Saga and…
Yes, after the breaking news earlier this week that the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) has proceeded to a formal investigation over Brandi Kruse’s Future 42 sponsors… there was an amended complaint filed by plaintiffs and a request for oral hearing on August 14. The amended complaint basically alleges that the Chair of the Capitol Correspondents Association (CCA) Jerry Cornfield asked Mrs. Ari Hoffman about Mr. Ari Hoffman improperly. Additionally, there is more… griping about the CCA guidelines so let’s review those guidelines that are at the epicenter of this saga, shall we?
Author Black & White Photo of the Washington State Capitol Dome
Those CCA Guidelines
Yes, these CCA guidelines and recommendations which I quote from below:
The Association recommendations are guided by this principle: The press must be independent from the government and from the political parties, their constituent groups, and the many organizations which have a stake in the Legislature’s proceedings. Blurring that line would raise questions about the motives of everyone in the press corps, and risk having the Legislature revoke or restrict the access we have maintained in the public interest for many years.
Of course, imagine if this gentleman, scholar, and conservative/MAGA pundit with the callsign “Troublemaker” was part of the press gallery:
“Every Republican Candidate” and “Vote Republican” and “Take Back Washington” sure doesn’t sound like, “Independent from the government and from the political parties”. But wait, there’s more…
A credential seeker’s employer must be a news organization, full stop. We do not support providing credentials to people who work for any publication or information source that is part of a larger non-news organization. The entity must be doing news for the sake of news alone. A labor union’s newsletter, a think tank’s blog, or a county government’s TV channel are examples of entities that would not qualify. An entity founded, funded or affiliated with lobbyists, lobbyist firms or lobbying associations or whose public or private board or advisory group is composed of lobbyists or lobbyist group representatives would also not qualify.
This clearly is to keep the damn lobbiyists out - especially lobbyists who are paid to testify for exemptions to public records & public meetings laws - as per an editorial I wrote a week ago. The guideline also at the same time clearly keeps out Jonathan Choe, who has done reams of street journalism on the connections between addition and homelessness:
Author 25 July 2026 Screenshot of fixhomelessness.org/about/
Worth noting from the amended complaint that Mr. Choe was allowed earlier in 2026 to cover the State Senate floor action on behalf of the Lynnwood Times. Because the Lynnwood Times is, “doing news for the sake of news alone” as per the guidelines. That’s not in any way, “Vague, arbitrary, and capricious nature of the Guidelines” as claimed in the amended complaint.
“Independent Observer and Monitor”
There is also from the same guidelines:
The Association will not support the providing of a credential to a person who is or may become engaged in campaigns, lobbying, or the development of public policy. Giving a relatively inconsequential amount of money to some organization probably is not enough to trigger this rule. Anything beyond that probably is.
It is important that a line be established between professional journalism and political or policy work. This is the spirit in which the Legislature has offered access: The press should act as an independent observer and monitor of the proceedings, not an involved party.
This means that we cannot endorse offering credentials to one who is part of, or may become involved with, a party, campaign or lobbying organization. We also can’t support providing a credential to folks who do any sort of consulting, advising, writing, or other work, whether paid or unpaid, for a politician, public official, party organization, lobbying shop, etc. The disqualification also is retroactive...
Yes, this means to me it’s problematic when management of bona fide media organizations - e.g. The Seattle Times - testify on bills and endorse candidates, but there are firewalls between management advocacy versus front-line journalists in those organizations. Such is not the case with a sole proprietor’s Beehiv who also testifies on bills (me!) or a think tank like Freedom Foundation or Discovery Institute.
But then there’s… drum roll please…
Brandi Kruse’s Litany of Issues
Yes, the same Brandi Kruse whose misbehavior kicked off OPERATION ROARING WASHINGTONIAN. The same Brandi Kruse who has some kind of special relationship with Future 42 currently under Public Disclosure Commission formal investigation:
“Future 42 Ambassador” sure sounds like someone who is one of those, “Folks who do any sort of consulting, advising, writing, or other work, whether paid or unpaid, for a politician, public official, party organization, lobbying shop, etc”. But wait, there’s more…
From pfortytwo.com/events
As per the above,
“Brandi also partners with Project 42 as an ambassador for its strategic communications project, Future 42.”
The above is partially why the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) is actively investigating both Future 42 and Mrs. Kruse at this time, with more complaints under initial PDC review. The PDC is the proper venue for concerns about unreported or underreported lobbying.
Undemocratic Comments by Project 42 Leader
Also safe to say comments like, “A full inbox of kneecapping efforts from Bob & his PDC backup band” by the leader of Project 42 - which includes Future 42 - Steve Gordon really are incorrect and frankly, disrespectful to the PDC Commissioners, staff and processes. The truth is the PDC at my urging warned Governor Bob Ferguson to stop using his official X account for wading into initiative campaigns. Perhaps Steve Gordon is one of those populists Heather “Newsbrooke” Brooke, Ph.D. and Timothy Snyder, Ph.D. is trying to warn us about… for as Dr. Snyder wrote in On Tyranny,
2. Defend institutions. It is institutions that help us to preserve decency. They need our help as well. Do not speak of "our institutions" unless you make them yours by acting on their behalf. Institutions do not protect themselves. They fall one after the other unless each is defended from the beginning. So choose an institution you care about -- a court, a newspaper, a law, a labor union -- and take its side.
In the Final Analysis…
To me, this all comes down to one cold, hard truth: The motives of and integrity of the press have never been under more testing times in both Washingtons than they have been in at least decades and tearing down the CCA guidelines is not going to help matters. From the wrong Washington, well the other night, US President Donald J. Trump at the White House Correspondents Dinner ranted at the media…
“You can be very, very difficult people, but I’m probably being a little bit oversensitive. Sometimes, I really do think that some of you don’t like me. In fact, I read a report, I get 93% negative publicity. 93. I – how the hell did I win the election by so much. Think of it, I don’t think that’s true. I can’t believe it’s 93. In the 80s, maybe, but not 90s. But this place is the, really, the largest group of Trump Derangement Syndrome people ever put together at one time, I suspect.”
Among other attacks on the free press by our President. Even worse, we have a Speaker of the Washington State House in Laurie Jinkins of the other political party who is a proponent of “legislative privlege” to keep from public disclosure documents of the Washington State legislature. This matter is currently working its way through the Washington State courts, as one can read an April 2026 Washington Coalition for Open Government statement on efforts to get the Washington State Supreme Court to weigh in on “legislative privlege”.
Author photo peering into the Washington State Temple of Justice at night
Yes, we are in a cold war for transparency with Washington State government on many fronts. More access to lobbyists when the CCA Guidelines are not applied simply means less access for genuine media, that’s the bottom line.
In Conclusion…
We’re in a tough stretch here in Washington State because of fellow Washingtonians with presumably good intentions who want to make mountains out of molehills. But in the end, I submit transparency will lead us to the truth. I quote Heather Brooke, Ph.D. below,
When people cannot see how decisions are made - or how money is spent, or whether justice is being done - resentment grows. In good times, it simmers; in hard times, it explodes. Transparency diffuses that pressure. It gives power back to citizens and deprives populists of the darkness in which they thrive.
I’ll grant Dr. Newsbrooke the last word so we conclude at 1989 words, the centennial year of Washington State.