Chapter §4.1 What Is an "Agency" Covered by the PRA?

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§4.1 WHAT IS AN "AGENCY" COVERED BY THE PRA?

The PRA "requires all state and local agencies to disclose any public record upon request, unless the record falls within certain very specific exemptions." Cornu-Labat v. Hosp. Dist. No. 2 Grant Cnty., 177 Wn.2d 221, 229, 298 P.3d 741 (2013) (citing Prog. Animal Welfare Soc'y v. Univ. of Wash. (PAWS II), 125 Wn.2d 243, 253, 884 P.2d 592 (1994)). Thus, any "agency" in the state of Washington is subject to the PRA. RCW 42.56.070(1).

An "agency" is defined in RCW 42.56.010:

"Agency" includes all state agencies and all local agencies. "State agency" includes every state office, department, division, bureau, board, commission, or other state agency. "Local agency" includes every county, city, town, municipal corporation, quasi-municipal corporation, or special purpose district, or any office, department, division, bureau, board, commission, or agency thereof, or other local public agency.

RCW 42.56.010(1); see also Clarke v. Tri-Cities Animal Care & Control Shelter, 144 Wn.App. 185, 191, 181 P.3d 881 (2008); Ames v. City of Fircrest, 71 Wn.App. 284, 291, 857 P.2d 1083 (1993); West v. Wash. State Ass'n of Dist. & Mun. Court Judges, 190 Wn.App. 931, 936, 361 P.3d 210 (2015).

(1) "Agency" is broadly defined

The RCW 42.56.010(1) definition of "agency" is broad enough to encompass any government entity in the state of Washington. As a result, the PRA has been applied to state agencies, see, e.g., Greenhalgh v. Dep't of Corr., 170 Wn.App. 137, 282 P.3d 1175 (2012); cities, see Forbes v. City of Gold Bar, 171 Wn.App. 857, 288 P.3d 384 (2012), review denied, 177 Wn.2d 1002 (2013); counties, see Koenig v. Thurston County, 175 Wn.2d 837, 287 P.3d 523 (2012); fire districts, see Violante v. King Cnty. Fire Dist. No. 20, 114 Wn.App. 565, 59 P.3d 109 (2002); ports, see, e.g., West v. Port of Olympia, 146 Wn.App. 108, 192 P.3d 926 (2008); public utility districts, see Concerned Ratepayers Ass'n v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 138 Wn.2d 950, 983 P.2d 635 (1999); public hospitals, see Oliver v. Harborview Med. Ctr, 94 Wn.2d 559, 618 P.2d 76 (1980); hospital districts, see Cornu-Labat, 177 Wn.2d at 226; school districts, see Bellevue John Does 1-11 v. Bellevue Sch. Dist. #405, 164 Wn.2d 199, 189 P.3d 139 (2008); a housing authority, see Resident Action Council v. Seattle Hous. Auth. (RAC), 177 Wn.2d 417, 300 P.3d 376, republished as amended, 327 P.3d 600 (2013); a county auditor's office, see Bldg. Indus. Ass'n of Wash. v. McCarthy, 152 Wn.App. 720, 218 P.3d 196 (2009) (BIAW); a combined city-county health district, see Tacoma News, Inc. v. Tacoma-Pierce Cnty. Health Dep't., 55 Wn.App. 515, 778 P.2d 1066 (1989), review denied, 113 Wn.2d 1037 (1990); and a private animal control company contracting with an agency, see Clarke, 144 Wn.App. 185. In Worthington v. West NET, 182 Wn.2d 500, 503, 341 P.3d 995 (2015), the Supreme Court reversed the grant of a CR 12(b)(6) motion in favor of a "multijurisdictional drug task force formed by an 'Interlocal Drug Task Force Agreement'" and remanded to the trial court to determine whether the task force is an agency subject to the PRA.

There is some question regarding whether individual elected officials are proper defendants in PRA lawsuits. Individual elected officials are frequently included along with their agency as defendants. See Evergreen Freedom Found, v. Locke, 127 Wn.App. 243, 110 P.3d 858 (2005) (suit against governor in his official capacity). In Limstrom v. Ladenburg (Limstrom II), 136 Wn.2d 595, 963 P.2d 869 (1998), an individual county prosecuting attorney was sued individually in his official capacity (although the court did not directly address whether the prosecutor was properly named as an individual defendant). The issue was raised in the trial court in BIAW, where the elected official was dismissed, but the appellate court avoided the issue on appeal, only commenting that it was "at least debatable" whether there is a legal basis for naming an elected official. 152 Wn.App. at 746. Agencies sometimes take the position that individual government officials cannot be sued under the PRA, given that the statute's definition of "agency" does not include the term "person." RCW 42.56.010(1). See Associated Press v. Washington State Legislature,___Wn.2d___, 454 P.3d 93 (2019), holding that individual legislators' "offices"—but not the legislators themselves—qualify as "agencies" subject to the PRA. In West v. Vermillion, 196 Wn.App. 627, 637, 384 P.3d 634 (2016), review denied, 187 Wn.2d 1024, cert, denied, 138 S. Ct. 202 (2017), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order directing an elected city council member to turn over responsive records to the city.

Subunits of a governmental body are subject to the PRA. See, e.g., Comaroto v. Pierce Cnty. Med. Exam'r's Office, 111 Wn.App. 69,43 P.3d 539 (2002). Different departments of a county (prosecuting attorney's office and sheriff's department for example) are both "agencies" and are separate from the county, which had no duty to ensure the departments coordinate their responses to a request. Koenig v. Pierce County, 151 Wn.App. 221, 232-33, 211 P.3d 423 (2009).

Even under the broad statutory definition of "agency" courts have continued to exempt the judiciary from the PRA. See Yakima County v. Yakima Herald-Republic, 170 Wn.2d 775, 792, 246 P.3d 768 (2011) (declining to reconsider the Supreme Court's seminal ruling in Nasi v. Michels, 107 Wn.2d 300, 730 P.2d 54 (1986), that courts are not "agencies" under the PRA because the PRA applies only to public records of an "agency" as defined in RCW 42.56.010(1)); see also City of Fed. Way v. Koenig, 167 Wn.2d 341, 346-48, 217 P.3d 1172 (2009) (same); Spokane & E. Lawyer v. Tompkins, 136 Wn.App. 616, 150 P.3d 158 (2007) (same) ; West, 190 Wn.App. at 937 (holding that judge's association was created by and is part of the judiciary and therefore not an "agency" as defined by the PRA). Instead, access to court files continues to be separately governed by statute and court rule. WAC 44-14-01001. The Supreme Court of Washington has adopted court rule GR 31.1 that will govern access to judicial administrative records—that is, records maintained by a judicial agency other than case records and judicial documents. The proposed rule was adopted on October 18, 2013, and will become effective at a later date to allow time for implementation and training. See further discussion in Chapter 21 (Access to Court Proceedings and Court Records) of this deskbook.

The Washington State Bar Association, as an arm of the courts, is not considered an "agency" under the PRA. In re Wash. State Bar Ass'n, 86 Wn.2d 624, 548 P.2d 310 (1976). As of July 1, 2014, however, the WSBA became subject to disclosure pursuant to GR 12.4. The rule provides a presumptive right of access to bar association records, with...