Chapter §7.2 Golden Rule of Construction

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§7.2 GOLDEN RULE OF CONSTRUCTION

When interpreting the PRA, Washington courts are guided by the overarching rule of construction stated in RCW 42.56.030:

The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created. This chapter shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy and to assure that the public interest will be fully protected. In the event of conflict between the provisions of this chapter and any other act, the provisions of this chapter shall govern.

(Emphasis added). Citing this legislative declaration, the Washington Supreme Court explained that liberal construction of the PRA promotes an important public policy "to keep Washington residents informed and in control over the instruments they have created." Lyft Inc. v. City of Seattle, 190 Wn.2d 769, 779, 418 P.3d 102 (2018). This strong policy of transparency is rooted in Initiative 276, approved by voters in 1972. RCW 42.17A.001. Initiative 276 continues to "serve as an important guide in determining the intended effect of the operative sections" of the PRA. Cedar Grove Composting, Inc. v. City of Marysville, 188 Wn.App. 695, 354 P.3d 249 (2015) (quoting Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wn.2d 123, 128, 580 p.2d 246 (1978)). Also guiding interpretation is RCW 42.56.550(3), which directs courts to "take into account the policy ... that free and open examination of public records is in the public interest, even though such examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment to public officials or others." In Belo Management Services, Inc. v. Click! Network, 184 Wn.App. 649, 662, 343 P.3d 370 (2014), the court found that the "public interest" the PRA protects is that of the public at large, not the subset of the public directly served by the city-owned cable company. Therefore, even though disclosure of cable company payments for certain television channels may have harmed the agency's customers, the public at large (and thus the public interest) was better served by disclosure because the allegedly confidential "information involves the expenditure of public funds." Id.

By requiring liberal construction to promote the policy of government accountability, RCW 42.56.030 sets the tone for all court decisions under the PRA. As the Washington Supreme Court said in Spokane Research & Defense Fund v. City of Spokane, 155 Wn.2d 89, 100, 117 P.3d 1117 (2005), "We interpret the [PRA] liberally to promote full disclosure of government activity that the people might know how their representatives have executed the public trust placed in them and so hold them accountable." The PRA's construction provision reflects its oft-stated purpose, which is "nothing less than the preservation of the most central tenets of representative government, namely, the sovereignty of the people and the accountability to the people of public officials and institutions." Burt v. State Dep't of Corr, 168 Wn.2d 828, 832, 231 P.3d 191 (201O);Kleven v. City of Des Moines, 111 Wn.App. 284, 289, 44 P.3d 887 (2002); see also Bonamy v. City of Seattle, 92 Wn.App. 403, 408-09, 960 P.2d 447 (1998), review denied, 137 Wn.2d 1012 (1999) (courts should "view with caution any interpretation" that frustrates the PRA purpose of disclosure) (quoting Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Blaine Sch. Dist. #503 (ACLU I), 86 Wn.App. 688, 693, 937 P.2d 1176 (1997)); Kitsap Cnty. Prosecuting Attorney's Guild v. Kitsap County, 156 Wn.App. 110, 118, 231 P.3d 219 (2010) (the "underlying policy and standard of construction" is rooted in the "purpose of the PRA," which "is to 'ensure the sovereignty of the people and...