§6.4 Working With The Requestor

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§6.4 WORKING WITH THE REQUESTOR

The receipt of a PRA request starts an ongoing relationship with the PRA requestor. Often, there may be a single additional interaction—producing the responsive records—but other times, a thorough PRA response will require significant interaction between the requestor and the agency.

(1) The initial response

In 2017, the legislature revised RCW 42.56.520 and RCW 42.56.080 on how agencies must respond to a PRA request, partly in response to Hikel v. City of Lynnwooal, 197 Wn.App. 366, 389 P.3d 677 (2016). In that case, the city's five-day response sought clarification of an extremely broad—but not unclear—request but did not provide a time estimate for its responsive first installment. The court held that RCW 42.56.520 did not permit a "seek clarification" response when the request sought an identifiable record. Citing the Public Records Act Deskbook, the court held that the city should have included a time estimate for a first installment, even if that estimate was speculative. Hikel, 197 Wn.App. at 375 (quoting Washington Public Records Act Deskbook §6.5(1) cmt. at 6-22 (Wash. State Bar Assoc. 2d ed. 2014).

Amended RCW 42.56.520 now allows a request for clarification to meet an agency's five-day response deadline. By that five-business-day deadline, the agency must either (1) provide the records, (2) provide an internet link to the records unless the agency has been informed that the requestor cannot access the record through the internet, (3) provide the requestor with a reasonable time estimate for a first installment of records, (4) seek clarification for any unclear portions of the request while still providing a reasonable time estimate to the extent possible, or (5) deny the request. RCW 42.56.520(1)(a) -(e).

When a request is not one that can be completed in five days or less, the receipt of the PRA request is often the first step in defining the scope of that request. A public records officer must be prepared to communicate and work with a requestor. The public records officer may seek clarification, work with the requestor to focus or narrow a request, or assist the requestor to formulate a request sufficient to fulfill the requestor's objectives. To be effective, the public records officer's efforts must be carried out with the attitude of providing the fullest assistance, recognizing that the agency's records are really the public's records and the public records officer is simply providing access.

Working in conjunction with requestors demonstrates a spirit of collaboration and the agency's desire to be transparent. Working together helps requestors feel involved in the process, promotes service excellence, and allows the requestor and the agency to benefit from the collaboration.

Comment: When agencies demonstrate good-faith efforts to diligently respond to requests and work with requestors, courts usually defer to the agencies' timetable for its response, finding no PRA violation if the agency misses a proposed time estimate. Andrews v. Wash State Patrol, 183 Wn.App. 644, 652, 334 P.3d 94 (2014) ("the legislature did not include a provision requiring an agency to disclose records within its initial estimated response date."); see also West v. Dep't of Licensing, 182 Wn.App. 500, 513-14, 331 P.3d 72 (2014) (agency did not violate the PRA when it failed to meet its estimated deadlines, given its good-faith efforts to comply with the broad request and keep requestor informed regarding its efforts).

(2) Handling oral requests and revisions

The PRA does not mandate that a requestor put the request in writing—agencies must respond to oral requests. O'Neill v. City of Shoreline (O'Neill II), 170 Wn.2d 138, 151, 240 P.3d 1149 (2010). Nevertheless, oral requests, while lawful, "are problematic." WAC 44-14-03006. For the requestor, an oral request "makes it unnecessarily difficult" for the requestor to prove what was requested. Beal v. City of Seattle, 150 Wn.App. 865, 874-75, 209 P.3d 872 (2009); see also, e.g., O'Neill II, 170 Wn.2d at 151 (holding oral request for "that email" did not provide notice to the city that the requestor wanted the metadata associated with "that email"). For agencies, details of an oral request may be forgotten and more easily misunderstood. An agency employee might not even recognize that an oral request for a record is a request made pursuant to the PRA. Beal, 150 Wn.App. at 875 (oral request at planning meeting did not provide "fair notice" that a PRA request had been made).

To avoid this problem, agencies should strongly encourage requestors to make requests in writing. Having a request form available on the agency's website or hard copies available in public areas can help in this regard.

In the event that an oral request is made, an agency should direct the person who receives the request to put it into written form, ideally using the agency request form, and then forward the request to the public records officer. The public records officer should send a confirming e-mail or letter to the requestor that repeats the request verbatim as it was understood and ask the requestor to verify the accuracy of the description of the request. All subsequent oral discussions with the requestor that affect the request should be treated in a similar manner, with written verification to the requestor. It is a best practice for the public records officer to tell the requestor that the agency will follow up any oral conversation with an e-mail or letter to ensure that the agency and requestor have the same understanding of what the agency is searching for.

(3) Unclear requests

An agency may seek clarification of an objectively "unclear" request. RCW 42.56.520; see also Levy v. Snohomish County, 167 Wn.App. 94, 98-99, 272 P.3d 874 (2012) (rejecting requestor's assertion that county unlawfully delayed response by seeking clarification). But a...