Chapter §6.1 Introduction

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§6.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter is meant to provide practical, hands-on advice for agency employees who are directly responsible for assuring agency compliance with the Public Records Act (PRA), Chapter 42.56 RCW. This responsibility rests largely with the agency's public records officer, who usually is not an attorney. Other chapters of this deskbook further discuss the case law construing the PRA, its exemptions, and its procedures. Public records officers (as well as agency attorneys) should consult those topic-specific chapters for an in-depth treatment of particular issues. Most day-to-day PRA issues, however, do not involve attorneys and do not require a legal interpretation of the statute. This chapter, coauthored by an attorney and four public records officers, seeks to help minimize problems with PRA compliance by providing (1) suggestions for proper agency responses to PRA requests and (2) guidance to requestors and attorneys representing them on how to work effectively with agencies to obtain the records sought.

This chapter focuses on suggested "best practices" that maximize strict compliance with the PRA. The chapter cites to the relevant statues and cases (many of which are discussed in more depth in other chapters in this deskbook) to cover the letter of the law. This approach is important because agencies must strictly comply with those standards. But to truly comply with the spirit of the PRA, agencies must also provide the "most timely possible action on requests" and the "fullest assistance" to requestors. RCW 42.56.100. These standards are more likely to be met when agencies establish and strive to meet best practices rather than practicing minimum compliance.

(1) A tale of two cities

Two important cases with opposite results, discussed below, illustrate the type of PRA compliance that agencies must achieve even when confronted with voluminous PRA requests from citizens. Both cases involved requests that taxed the resources of small municipalities with limited resources.

(a) Mesa, Washington

The tale starts deep in central Washington in 2002. Mesa, a tiny town of less than 500 residents, had four employees, two of whom were maintenance employees and a third who was employed only part time. Thus, all of the management duties of the city, including PRA compliance, were carried out by the fourth employee, the clerk/treasurer, and her part-time assistant, with guidance from a five-person volunteer city council. Zink v. City of Mesa (Zink I), 140 Wn.App. 328...