Table of Contents
“Decisions Are Made by Those Who Show Up”
No kidding. As “The West Wing” quote goes to kick off the biggest Washington State open government story of 2026…
Why You Need to Show Up Tuesday, 3 PM
Yes, Tuesday, 3 PM is when the Washington State Attorney General’s Office Public Records Act Model Rules hearing is. These model rules are considered persuasive guidance to courts aducating public records litigation, and as such are taken seriously by both governments and requestors. One can attend either in person or online orally, as well as e-mail in public comments. It’s important that you do.
On Promptness
It’s important with all the local government and state government lobbyists & directors who will be testifying that requestors testify also. Otherwise, the messages to the Attorney General’s Office are going to be - and cherry-picking from Round 1…
“Please consider that when a person's expectations are not met, it can cause a requestor to become irritated and irate creating unsafe conditions for the public agency. Rather than the public agency being put in a position of arguing over what "prompt or promptly" means and laying out expectations around that, the language should be removed. As written it will cause unintended consequences and can easily lead to unsafe conditions, which we all want to avoid as public employees. “
“The PRA already mandates prompt responses to requests. It is unclear what these revisions emphasizing promptness and timeliness will achieve or obligate upon public agencies, particularly given the vagueness of the proposed language.“
“RCW 42.56.520 requires an agency to acknowledge a public records request within five business days, but it does not impose a specific time-period in which records must be produced. Record production must occur “promptly.” Whether the “promptly” requirement has been met requires an evaluation of the request and the surrounding facts and circumstances and is not susceptible to
bright line rules. AWC therefore opposes the proposed revisions to WAC 44-14-040(1).”
You may have noticed the three examples - and I could cherry-pick more - are all around promptness as provided in RCW 42.56.520. If you truly want the above voices to dominate Tuesday’s debate, please fellow requestors stay home. Disengage. Act like you believe freedom is free.
Otherwise, if you agree that we need public records production to be prompt as originally intended by state law, speak up. Very much so if you concur that a good model rule is,
The (name of agency) shall, upon request for identifiable public records, make them promptly available including, if applicable, on a partial or installment basis as records that are part of a larger set of requested records are assembled or made ready for inspection and disclosure. The (name of agency) will be diligent when processing requests by installment.
On Triaging
There was also much hand-wringing over the proposal to triage public records requests. I happen to think the below proposal is a good idea:
When appropriate, triaging requests into simple and complex tracks to ensure that processing times are proportionate to the difficulty of each request. Where a request has been made for a single, specific, available, identifiable record, that requires limited review for exempt content, the (name of the agency) will endeavor to produce the request within five business days if practicable to do so.
Why? Because contrary to the protestations of say from Round 1 the Association of Washington Cities letter stating that triaging, “Runs the risk of creating a category of complex requests that remain open indefinitely if an agency does not have the resources to process both the simple and complex requests while performing its other essential functions” - well requestors who make acute public records requests should be rewarded while those requestors needing many documents can wait patiently.
On Time-Sensitivity
Having journalistically had to deal with publishing deadlines that either:
a) Deter using Washington State Public Records Act (PRA) and US Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) due to production timelines, OR
b) Require deadlines to slide waiting for public records production…
I fully endorse this part of the proposed model rules:
When evaluating the nature of the request, the (name of the agency) should 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. If due to the availability of records, the quantity of responsive records or the record's content, production of all the requested records is not practicable within the time frame provided by the requestor, the public records officer will work with the requestor in an effort to identify and prioritize individual records.
The thinking behind this seems to be to reduce the threat of public records litigation, and focus investment in public records production. These things just make sense for journalists to be able to incorporate public records into their work.
Reviewing Annual Public Records Production Metrics
As folks prepare comments on these model rules to the Public Records Act, I would recommend playing around with the Washington State Joint Legislative Audit & Review Committee (JLARC) annual public records production statistics. These statistics are based on government agencies that have spent a minimum of spending over $100,000 in staff and legal costs associated with maintaining public records and responding to records requests. However, as noted last year by the Washington Coalition for Open Government; the Association of Washington Cities did attempt to oppose the continuation of this effort.
Screenshot of JLARC Tracking of the Cost of Public Records Production
A bonus idea for the model rules is that one could argue that those below $100,000 should turn in a report anyway to JLARC. Especially as our neighbours to the north are interested in similar metrics… and earlier this week kick-started a public relations offensive to get those metrics for British Columbia.
British Columbia Info Commish Also Seeks Metrics
See the British Columbia Information & Privacy Commissioner - previously profiled last month - on June 24 called for governmental bodies to make an annual report of public records production in a 45-page report that will be reviewed in a future Beehiv. As per the official statement, Commissioner Michael Harvey shared that,
“The more we know about how public bodies are meeting their obligations under [Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA)] FIPPA, the more accountable the entire system can be to the people it serves. … Public reporting of FOI metrics is fundamental to accountability – when public bodies know their performance is visible, their performance improves. My office’s own audits have shown scrutiny brings results. … A robust FOI metrics program in BC would strengthen public trust, allow my office to identify and address systemic challenges, and also highlight excellence in service delivery that others could emulate.”
One can review the below infographic full of relevant statistics that go beyond what JLARC tracks for the Washington State Legislature:
Infographic: British Columbia Office of the Information & Privacy Commissioner
Granted, this report and other recent freedom of information (FOI) updates will be the subject of a future special Beehiv - tentatively planned for July 1 (Canada Day). This is as those updates require a through response.
With that, to make discusisng public records metrics relevant to recent events: As regular readers may recall, recently I had to lobby Skagit Transit to release only a fraction of the above statistics to justify having a full-time public records officer. Considering the heating up of the de facto political cold war over the future of the Public Records Act in Washington State having actual statistics could be helpful not just in justifying investment in public records production, but finding the best practices to reduce the costs to taxpayers in public records production.
In conclusion: Addressing promptness, triaging, addressing “time is of the essence” public records requests, and tracking public records production to improve efficiency are just four of many public records production issues raised in the Attorney General’s Office Model Rules proposals. One can review the Municipal Research & Services Center (MRSC) unsigned blog also to find other model rules issues. Although the second version of these model rules is not as strong as the first, the second version is still an improvement. I encourage my readers to please read the proposed model rules for themselves and then participate.
How Can One Participate?
OK, so how can you participate? There are three options:
In-Person Participation Option:
The public hearing is scheduled Tuesday, June 30, 2026, from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm in the John A. Cherberg Building, Rooms ABC, 304 15th Avenue SW, Olympia WA.
Virtual Participation Oral Option:
One can register to sortie/speak - up to you - before noon Tuesday HERE. Requires using the Zoom software platform.
Virtual Participation Written Option:
One can also submit written comments by email at [email protected]. The deadline is Tuesday, June 30, 2026, at 5:00 pm. So you can watch the hearing via THIS Zoom link and fire off your comments full of rebuttals at 4:59 pm if that is your desire.
Call this a friendly sidebar if you are planning on issuing rebuttal comments right before the 5 PM deadline to sync your computer clock with world time Tuesday afternoon. Here’s the Windows 11 way to sync clocks:
This YouTube seems accurate for Apple OS users. But I lack any Apple devices currently…
New Public Records Officer Podcast Episode…
I’d be remiss if I did not share that the Public Records Officer Podcast has dropped a new episode. I’m sure by now most readers are regular subscribers, but if not…
In this sequel to “The Watchdog’s Blind Eye,” Jamie Nixon examines how the Washington State Auditor’s Office tells citizens it lacks authority to audit public-records handling at other agencies — even though SAO has already performed public-records-related performance audits in 2008 and 2016.
This episode walks through SAO’s Citizen Hotline Audit Request denials, the selective carve-out in the Bainbridge Island hotline matter, the removal of “Records” from the hotline’s public-facing category, and PRR 7750 — a records request that showed the change, but not the written reasoning behind it.
Sad to hear the Washington State Auditor’s Office (SAO) is slacking these days. Give the whole episode a listen, will ya?
A Programming Note
Author HDR of the BC Legislative Assembly at Sunset
First, again I will do a special edition on British Columbia’s Freedom of Information updates. Not just as Wednesday is Canada Day, but Wednesday is the day after the big 3 PM Tuesday hearing plus these developments deserve special attention. Even though Tuesday is normally the backup day for publishing Beehivs when Sunday doesn’t work, we did a special report on a Wednesday this month, and we had breaking news land on a Monday.
On that note, I expect any day now the Public Disclosure Commission to update me on their work regarding the activities of Project 42 & Brandi Kruse. As you may recall, they are major players in the Washington State House Press Pass Saga.
This Beehiv will also be issuing some thoughts on July 4th - happy America250 everyone. After that, there is some public records-based reporting that needs doing.
Concluding this Beehiv at 1972 words as the Public Records Act was passed by a 1972 initiative to the people.