News Media Rulemaking Petition Comments

My comment is in reference to proposed changes to WAC 44-14-040 (Processing of public records requests—General), section 8:

“The requestor may make a subsequent request for the same or almost identical records, which may be processed by the agency as a new request. In evaluating the time to process the new request, the agency will consider how recently the prior request was closed and the number of records from the prior request remaining to be processed.”

My experience dictates that a noticeable percentage of requesters seeking large numbers of records are the same people who will also submit multiple requests of similar large scope. Members of the media are a very frequent example of this. My agency’s adopted practice is to process multiple requests from the same requester in sequential order rather than in parallel (or in the order specified by the requester). In many cases, these large requesters will eventually abandon the request which prompts us to move on to the next one.

By stating that an agency should, in many cases, effectively prioritize this new request I believe it will be harmful to the overall process. This will essentially remove the penalties that abandonment imposes on a requester who does not fulfil their statutory obligation to inspect records. Additionally, it would penalize requesters who are fulfilling this obligation by potentially pushing back their request’s response date due to a perceived need to effectively re-open and quickly resume requests that were abandoned once already. The final issue is that is would affect my agency directly by throwing into question which request would be the current priority to work on, if we are constantly throwing the same set of records back into the queue.

It is my opinion that once a request has been closed as abandoned, should a new request be submitted, that we treat that as an entirely new request subject to the same process as anybody else. This would be in the spirit of the PRA which says we should not treat requesters differently, as a new request should go through the same triage process regardless of a requester’s past request history. It also would frankly give requesters who frequently abandon requests the wrong idea that there is no real reason to respect an agency’s time by inspecting records if they can just effectively re-open requests when it is convenient to them and jump the queue.

I offer comments concerning CR-102.

I am a licensed architect in Washington State and a freelance investigative journalist.

My reporting has been published by Mother Jones, The Urbanist, Real Change, Prism, The South Seattle Emerald, and has been cited by the Seattle Times and in federal court filings by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

In the past year I have filed and settled two Washington State Public Records Act (PRA) lawsuits against the city of Seattle concerning requests I made to the Seattle Police Department (SPD). The city of Seattle has since admitted to violating the PRA in fulfilling one of my requests.

My reporting is often hindered by officials who destroy records, refuse to answer questions, or delay response to public records requests. Recently, a city of Seattle investigation substantiated that an SPD public records officer was dishonest to me while fulfilling my public records request, closing it prematurely without a proper search after numerous delays.

An internal counseling memo I uncovered revealed that the same SPD legal unit employee left 79 SPD public records requests unfulfilled past their assigned due dates. According to the memo, one public records request submitted to the SPD appeared to be silently delayed 25 times without notification to the (unknown) requestor. Forensic audits have also determined that SPD employees have destroyed thousands of records from their city-issued cell phones. Delays in fulfilling public records requests have even been a known liability for the department according to their own internal legal unit communications.

The scope of my reporting has revealed information of extraordinary public interest, including the infiltration of FBI/SPD informants within Seattle’s 2020 protests, the willful negligence of Seattle’s police accountability systems and that the SPD was knowingly dishonest in their public statements concerning the use of surveillance technology.

Former President Richard Nixon said that “When information which properly belongs to the public is systematically withheld by those in power, the people soon become ignorant of their own affairs, distrustful of those who manage them, and eventually incapable of determining their own destinies.”

That is exactly what is happening today within the SPD. The public is being kept in the dark through the SPD’s culture of lawlessness in fulfilling the city’s responsibilities under the PRA. This leaves a void of information that the SPD then aims to exploit with their own propaganda to manipulate public opinion in furtherance of their own objectives.

This is something that I have conclusively reported in Real Change, that the SPD used their own former federal consent decree court monitor as a surrogate to advance the department's own interests in the media. Cascade PBS later took down an op-ed from their website after I revealed it was initially secretly drafted by an SPD official.

Throughout history, Seattle officials have routinely postured in public statements, touting the value of transparency. In practice, the SPD’s actions show that the department continues to restrict the public’s access to information, through delays, dishonesty, and destruction, revealing an institutional commitment to the anti-democratic suppression of information.

The SPD’s effective weaponization of the PRA and institutionalized delays through understaffing, “grouping” requests, the use of personal cellphones to conduct official business, and negligent searches have effectively allowed the city to manipulate Overton Windows, moments of popular support for policy changes that certain department officials do not personally support.

This institutionalized process within Seattle city government is antithetical to the intent of the PRA which states that “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.”

I support the proposed CR-102 rule changes that insert promptness and diligence as best practices in fulfilling public records requests.

As to this section:

(6) ((Protecting rights of others.)) Third party notice and preventing irreparable harm. In the event that the requested records contain information ((that may affect rights of others and may be exempt from disclosure)), the disclosure of which may substantially and irreparably damage any person or vital governmental function, the public records officer may, prior to providing the records, give notice to a person named in such ((others whose rights may be affected by the disclosure)) records or to whom the records specifically pertain. Before sending a notice, an agency should have a reasonable belief that the records are arguably exempt from disclosure. Such notice should be given so as to make it possible for ((those other persons to contact)) the requestor ((and ask him or her)) to revise the request, or, if necessary, allow the affected person to seek an order from a court to prevent or limit the disclosure. The notice to the affected person((s)) will include a copy of the request and inform them that the disclosure will occur on a date certain, generally within 10 business days of the notice, unless an injunction is obtained under RCW 42.56.540.

This is problematic to many of the requests we receive for agency employee lists.  The data is usually never exempt, but the CBA’s require notification to employees.  

Hello,

Seattle Times today, 10/9/25, has an article ‘Press proposal to improve transparency in the state advances’ and is a must read.

If we are to trust you, and our government, then implement these rules!

Our opinions matter!

I recommend not having any priority given to WA sate residents as that violates the anonymity provision of not discriminating between requesters. It would be discrimination.

I also recommend further protection of the anonymity provision as many PROs and legal directors (including Al Rose of SAO) do not understand that there is the provision. And this should include how records are provided. There should be no forced forfeit of anonymity in order to get records like there is with some agencies. 

WA State has always been a leader in public transparency.  However, more and more, the state legislature wants to deny the public the right to public documents, public conversations, texts, emails.  When transparency it harmed, people trust the government even less.

This State is treading in dangerous waters today by trying to reduce transparency instead of actively increasing public transparency.

All the reasons are not "reasons", they are just excuses.

I am the editor and publisher of PubliCola, a local news website in Seattle, which I co-founded with a colleague, Josh Feit, in 2009. Prior to starting PubliCola, I was an editor and reporter for weekly newspapers in Austin and Seattle, and a freelance writer for many local and national publications.

I am generally supportive of the changes outlined in the proposed model rule amendments. I have a few suggestions for strengthening the provisions around timeliness, queuing of records, closure of records requests when the requester fails to respond, and a comment about one common action that isn't considered in the proposed amendments.

1. The Seattle Police Department has a policy of "grouping" multiple records requests into a single record, including both requests to which they've provided partial responses and new requests, and answering a single request in full before moving to the next request. In other words, a new request, no matter how simple or timely, will be sent to the back of the line and SPD will not begin to process it until it has completed the final installment on every other request in the group, and each of those must be closed before the agency will begin on the next one.

I would suggest that the model legislation include an explicit ban on "grouping" requests in this way, as the practice is routinely used by SPD, and potentially other agencies. to delay requests for months.

At a minimum, the model legislation should prohibit agencies that group their records in this way from another policy SPD has adopted: If multiple requests are "grouped" into what SPD considers a single request, and if a requester fails to pick up even one installment of one of the separate requests she has filed, every single open request filed by that person is closed, since they are now all purportedly one request considered as a "group." This practice goes far beyond the routine practice of closing requests after a requester fails to pay for them or pick them up within 30 days.

2. I would suggest a more specific definition of "reasonably organized," perhaps to include a prohibition on excessively duplicative records. Local agencies routinely respond to requests for communications and other records with files that are hundreds and hundreds of pages long, with most of these pages consisting of identical emails, for example. It would be helpful to include language such as "reasonably organized and not excessively duplicative" in the section about record organization.

3. Local agencies often respond to records requests for emails without including the relevant attachment that is the topic of an email thread. "Requests for communications should include attachments" could make it clear that documents attached to emails are not exempt from disclosure.

Finally, there's a typo that I'm sure I'm not the first to point out: On page 6, it says "produce the request" when I believe it should say "produce the records."

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue, and for promulgating these rules in the interest of public disclosure.

 Dear Attorney General’s Office,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed CR-102 amendments to the Model Public Records Act (PRA) Rules. I appreciate the intent to provide clarity and consistency in PRA implementation, but I have several concerns about the proposed changes and their practical impact on agencies.

1. Triage of Requests into Simple and Complex Tracks
While I understand the desire to improve timeliness, the proposed triage system should remain at the discretion of each agency. The public or media cannot accurately determine how difficult a request will be to fulfill; this determination depends on the unique circumstances and resources of the responding agency. Agencies already follow established guidelines and statutory timelines for processing requests. Adding new layers of categorization or subjective standards will only complicate compliance and create unrealistic expectations.

2. Providing Records with the Initial Five-Day Response
Agencies already have clear direction under current law regarding the five-day rule. Requiring that agencies provide specific records within that timeframe, even for “simple” requests, may not be feasible depending on staff availability, system limitations, or other pending requests. The current framework already allows agencies to respond promptly while maintaining fairness and accuracy and what the media may think is simple may not be accurate, and labeling a response as simple without adequate information is dismissive of the work, oversimplifying what they don’t understand.

3. Third-Party Notice Requirements
The proposal to “make sure” agencies have a reasonable belief that records are arguably exempt before issuing third-party notice is ambiguous. How would this be qualified or measured? Agencies should retain the discretion to determine when a third-party notice is appropriate, as they are best positioned to understand the sensitivity and context of their own records. External mandates in this area risk slowing down the process rather than improving it.

4. Accessibility and Searchability of Records
Many agencies—especially larger ones—already offer electronic access or searchable databases for public records. However, some records remain stored in physical archives or warehouses, requiring logistical coordination and staff time to retrieve. Mandating additional requirements for accessibility without corresponding resources or consideration of agency size and capacity would create undue burdens.

5. Closure Letters and Judicial Review Notifications
While communication and transparency with requesters are important, requiring agencies to use specific terminology or to educate requesters about their legal rights exceeds the agency’s responsibility. Agencies should simply notify requesters when all responsive records have been provided. The proposed requirements would add administrative complexity without improving compliance or service quality.

General Concerns
Overall, the proposed changes do not reflect a clear understanding of how agencies store, track, and process public records requests. In several instances, the amendments appear to contradict the plain language of the PRA itself. The Model Rules should serve as flexible guidance that showcases broadly applicable best practices—not rigid prescriptions that create confusion.

Public records encompass an immense range of materials, and agencies vary widely in staffing, budget, and technological capability. The Model Rules should reflect these differences and remain practical for all entities subject to the PRA.

Thank you for considering these comments and for your continued work to balance transparency with the operational realities of agencies that serve the public.

Thank you for sharing these proposed process improvements. While the intent behind these suggestions is understandable, implementing them as outlined presents significant challenges and raises concerns around fairness, feasibility, and resource allocation.

Here's a breakdown of the issues associated with each item, along with broader systemic concerns:

1. Triage requests into simple and complex tracks

While this may seem like a logical way to streamline processing, it introduces several complications:

• Fairness to requesters: Prioritizing "simple" requests risks sidelining those who have been waiting weeks for more complex records. This undermines the principle of first-in, first-out processing and could erode public trust in the agency’s transparency.
• Constant influx of new requests: Agencies receive new requests daily, making it difficult to maintain consistent triage categories. What appears "simple" on the surface may require deeper review, especially if exemptions or third-party interests are involved.
• Subjectivity and inconsistency: Determining complexity is not always straightforward. Agencies would need to develop and maintain clear criteria, which could vary across departments and lead to inconsistent application.

2. Provide records within the initial five-day response for single, specific, identifiable records

This goal is admirable but often impractical:

• Volume and timing: Even straightforward requests must enter the queue alongside others. Pulling them out for expedited handling disrupts workflow and disadvantages those with pending requests.
• Verification and review: Even a single record may require legal review, redaction, or third-party consultation. Rushing this process could lead to inadvertent disclosure of sensitive information.
• Staffing constraints: Agencies operate with limited personnel and must balance responsiveness with accuracy and compliance. Imposing a five-day turnaround for select requests adds pressure without additional resources.

3. Require reasonable belief of exemption before issuing third-party notice

While well-intentioned, this proposal could hinder timely processing:

• Delays in notice issuance: Agencies often issue third-party notices early to avoid unnecessary delays. Requiring a pre-determined belief of exemption adds a layer of analysis that may not be feasible at the outset.
• Risk of premature disclosure: Without early notice, agencies may inadvertently release records that implicate third-party privacy or proprietary interests.
• Legal exposure: The threshold for “reasonable belief” is subjective and could expose agencies to legal challenges if notices are deemed unnecessary or delayed.

Broader Concerns: The Need to Modernize RCW 42.56

The Public Records Act (RCW 42.56) was written for a different era — and it has not kept pace with the realities of the digital age. Agencies are now facing unprecedented challenges:

• Weaponized requests: Some individuals submit massive, frivolous requests designed to overwhelm agency resources. These requests often lack legitimate public interest and can cripple operations.
• Profit-driven exploitation: There are cases where requesters comb through large datasets hoping to catch minor errors or omissions, then pursue legal action for financial gain. This creates a chilling effect and diverts public funds from core services.
• Grudge-based targeting: Agencies also encounter repeat requesters who submit multiple overlapping or duplicative requests as a form of retaliation or harassment. These patterns waste staff time and undermine the spirit of transparency.
• Digital complexity: The volume and format of electronic records — emails, databases, cloud files — make review and redaction exponentially more difficult than in the paper era. The law must evolve to reflect this reality.

In theory, these proposals aim to improve efficiency and transparency. In practice, they risk creating inequities among requesters, overburdening staff, and complicating legal compliance. Moreover, the Public Records Act itself must be revisited to ensure it protects the public’s right to know while safeguarding agencies from abuse and operational paralysis.
 

A goal of the State in its records request and response protocols should be finding the balance between the public's (requestor's) right to information against the burden of time, labor, and material costs for the responding agency. 

There should be three components to prioritizing requests:

1. The estimated time and effort it should take to complete the records request fulfillment

2. The agencies staffing capacity for completing the task (Consider large and small school districts where some have entire departments or positions for the work, and some - the burden falls on an employee who already has full responsibilities)

3. Some threshold for screening frivolous or malicious requests (similar to filing tort claims in court)

4. Perhaps a central records request (State) department/service that could serve as the respondent (similar to ombuds), as the State has more capacity and technology to do it better and faster. 

I do advocate for additional considerations beyond first requested/first served.   

Perhaps there can be classifications of requests that have parallel but different response windows (quick and easy vs involved).   

Thank you for including this feedback in the rule making process. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on proposed rule changes related to public record requests. I have read the changes and would like to offer the following comments:

In WAC 44-14-010 (1)  remove the proposed word "promptly" in the first sentence. Promptly is not defined, so it can be perceived to have different meanings for people. The adjective "prompt" means: quick, swift, rapid, speedy, fast, direct, immediate, instant, instantaneous, expeditious, etc....

Some may believe it to mean "drop everything and hand over the record immediately," which is not realistic for public agencies. We need time to locate the record, if it exists, review it for exemptions, and go through the proper steps of handling the record. I work for a school district and have many exemption rules I must follow when it comes to students and employee records. In addition, there are so many rules we must follow when it comes to handling a request. There are rules around accepting requests, documenting it, researching so we can provide estimates, writing the five day letter, clarifying if needed, conducting the search, gathering records, estimating costs, notifying the requestor, etc. that those steps alone can take days and weeks to do, which is not prompt.   The language sets us up for failure almost every time.

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. 

In section 3, remove the word "prompt". Again, it sets up public agencies for failure. We might be able to turn around a request in a few days, but that is rare for my agency and is not prompt.

Those are the only comments I have on the proposed changes. 

I am writing as a former long-time Washington resident who only recently relocated out of state. During my years in Washington, I was deeply involved in civic and community affairs, and I have personally experienced political interference in the handling of Public Records Act requests.

In my case, elected officials pressured city staff to delay and narrow responses to records I had requested concerning their conduct. The delays stretched well past a local election period, allowing one of those officials to be elected before the records became public. I ultimately filed a lawsuit against the City of Woodinville under the Public Records Act. The process took so long that I eventually had to settle, leaving serious questions of accountability unresolved.

I share this experience not to revisit the past, but to emphasize how essential these model rules are to preserving timely and impartial public access to government records.

I strongly support several of the proposed revisions now before you:

• WAC 44-14-030(3) — adds protections against interference by employees and elected officials in the handling or preservation of records..
• WAC 44-14-040(1)–(4) — clarifies timely, documented responses and prioritization of simple requests to prevent politically motivated delays.
• WAC 44-14-04006(3) — clarifies that internal discussions about how to handle a records request are not categorically exempt from disclosure.
• WAC 44-14-04008(5) — declares that destruction of a record after receipt of a request is a per se violation of the Public Records Act.
• WAC 44-14-04010 — creates a new requirement for training of employees, volunteers, and elected officials on PRA duties, including retention and non-interference.

These reforms meaningfully strengthen independence, accountability, and timely disclosure.

However, I urge the Attorney General’s Office to go further. The model rules should recommend explicit sanctions for elected officials who intimidate or pressure clerks and staff responsible for fulfilling records requests. These professionals are often career employees whose livelihoods depend on those they must sometimes resist. Without clear protection and consequence, the independence promised in WAV rules remains vulnerable.

Possible mechanisms could include:

• requiring agencies to publicly report any instance of interference in their annual transparency reports;
• designating such conduct as ethical misconduct subject to censure or removal under local codes; and
• encouraging the Legislature to explore a recall-trigger mechanism when elected officials knowingly obstruct or retaliate against compliance with the Public Records Act.

Transparency should not depend on the personal courage of individual clerks or on the ability of citizens to sustain years of litigation. The process itself must contain the protections necessary to ensure public accountability.

Thank you for advancing these important reforms and for inviting public comment. Washington has long been a national leader in open government; these proposed rules, coupled with meaningful accountability, will ensure that leadership continues.

1. WAC 44-14-040 (6) – Third Party Notice / Preventing Irreparable Harm

Highlighted change:

“...the disclosure of which may substantially and irreparably damage any person or vital governmental function...Before sending a notice, an agency should have a reasonable belief that the records are arguably exempt from disclosure...”

WSP comment:

• WSP sometimes sends notices even when records are not clearly exempt, such as for privacy concerns or sensitive topics, because it “seems like the right thing to do.”
• Issue: The language ties the ability to notify to a “reasonable belief that the records are arguably exempt.” Under the strict reading, WSP’s broader practice may not meet this threshold, which could create a tension between doing what seems right for privacy and complying with the rule.

Implication: Agencies may be constrained from providing protective notices unless they can clearly justify the records as arguably exempt.

2. WAC 44-14-040 (10) – Partial or Installment Disclosure

Key language:

“...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...diligent when processing requests by installment.”

WSP comment:

• This reinforces the expectation of promptness and installment processing.

Implication: Operational pressure increases, particularly for large or complex requests (e.g., body-worn camera or dashcam videos), without a clear definition of “promptly” or “diligent.”

3. WAC 44-14-020 (3) – Fullest Assistance / Timely Action

New addition:

“...will provide the 'fullest assistance' to requestors and the most timely possible action on requests...”

WSP comment:

• WSP already receives complaints regarding timeliness, particularly for video records.
• Adding “fullest assistance” and “most timely possible action” creates more pressure without defining what constitutes “timely” action

Implication: This could expose the agency to additional complaints or claims of noncompliance.

1. please make agencies expedite easy requests
2. please make state agencies be open for the statutorily required 30 hours per week (minimum) for records viewing (so many are not and cry when you say it is statutorily required)

I’m Laura Greanias, investigations editor for The Seattle Times, which joined in the 2024 media petition for improvements to the model rules. That petition described a “crisis” in access to public records. It mentioned “outrageously long time estimates for satisfying simple records requests” and “extreme backlogs” that interfered with the public’s right to learn about pressing concerns.

These problems still exist. Reporters still face long delays when asking for important public records.

Reforms are overdue. The model rule changes proposed by your office should be adopted. Although they are not exactly what the media proposed and do not solve every concern (for example, they would not require agencies to accept fee payments online), they are a much-needed positive step toward fulfilling the promises of the Public Records Act. For more detail on why the changes are needed, please see the “explanation” after each of the media’s rule proposals^[1] and the media’s letter responding to informal comments on the petition.^[2]

Thank you for considering this comment in favor of the proposed rules. 

On behalf of the League of Women Voters of Washington, we urge adoption of the proposed Model Public Records Act Rules to improve government transparency.

Since the League was founded in 1920, our membership has worked hard to ensure everyone is represented in our democracy.  To achieve our two-fold mission of empowering voters and defending democracy, we engage in comprehensive studies of issues, including what makes for a healthy and truly representative government.

The League supports the proposals to update the administrative rules of the Public Records Act by the following:

• Triaging requests into simple and complex tracks to ensure processing times are proportionate to the difficulty of each request.
• Providing records with their initial five-day response where the request is for a single, specific, identifiable record.
• Making sure the agency has a reasonable belief that the records are arguably exempt from disclosure before issuing a third-party notice.

These proposals reflect a number of positions our membership has adopted, including the League of Women Voters of the U.S. position on Citizen’s Right to Know/Citizen Participation, which states, in part, “governmental bodies must protect the citizen’s right to know by giving adequate notice of proposed actions, holding open meetings, and making public records accessible.”

Timely access to information made available by the Public Records Act also is supported by the League’s position on Local News & Democracy by virtue of its position that “credible and ethical local journalism … is essential to our democracy.”  

We urge adoption of the proposed new rules for public disclosure. Thank you for your consideration.

Please see the attached proposal with tracked comments for the rule change. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out.

1. I do support an express line for requesting one specific record. I have situations with both UW and WSU where I have requested one specific easy record and it took over a year to get said records.
2. I wish model rules would address things no one seems to care about. For example the AG itself is guilty of not responding in the required 5 day time frame all the time. Literally no one cares. And there are no consequences.
3. I wish there was something to be done (I don't know what) some sort of admonishment feature when agencies blatantly violate 42.56, such as not being open during regular business hours or at least 30 hours per week for public viewing. So many state agencies violate this. UW only had 12 hours open for public viewing until I called them out on it.
4. The 30 day thing for alerting employees I agree is cumbersome, but even worse is when the agency makes it longer than 30 days which I have often had.

In conclusion, I wish model rules mostly admonished agencies that blatantly violate RWC 42.56 et seq. 

On behalf of the League of Women Voters of Washington, we urge adoption of the proposed Model Public Records Act Rules to improve government transparency.

Since the League was founded in 1920, our membership has worked hard to ensure everyone is represented in our democracy.  To achieve our two-fold mission of empowering voters and defending democracy, we engage in comprehensive studies of issues, including what makes for a healthy and truly representative government.

The League supports the proposals to update the administrative rules of the Public Records Act by the following:

• Triaging requests into simple and complex tracks to ensure processing times are proportionate to the difficulty of each request.
• Providing records with their initial five-day response where the request is for a single, specific, identifiable record.
• Making sure the agency has a reasonable belief that the records are arguably exempt from disclosure before issuing a third-party notice.

These proposals reflect a number of positions our membership has adopted, including the League of Women Voters of the U.S. position on Citizen’s Right to Know/Citizen Participation, which states, in part, “governmental bodies must protect the citizen’s right to know by giving adequate notice of proposed actions, holding open meetings, and making public records accessible.”

Timely access to information made available by the Public Records Act also is supported by the League’s position on Local News & Democracy by virtue of its position that “credible and ethical local journalism … is essential to our democracy.” 

We urge adoption of the proposed new rules for public disclosure. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to the Model Public Records Act (PRA) Rules. The undersigned representatives of the City of Raymond support transparency, accountability, and improving public access to government records. However, we write to state an objection to several proposed changes because they are inconsistent with Chapter 42.56 RCW, and this inconsistency creates an untenable legal risk for cities who rely on the model rules to implement the PRA. Additionally, there are significant equity and operational concerns that will hinder effective implementation and only lead to costly and unnecessary litigation for all public agencies in Washington.

1. Amendments to Third-Party Notification Process Creates Legal Risk and Eliminates Protections for the Public.

Third-Party notification is an important safeguard against the dissemination of private information and the proposed amendments to the model rules would minimize, if not eliminate, its usefulness. The proposed amendments disallow an agency from providing third party notice unless the agency first determines whether disclosure of the record “may substantially and irreparably damage any person or vital governmental function.” Notice may only be given if the agency also has a “reasonable belief that the records are arguably exempt from disclosure.”

Not only are these two requirements replete with undefined terms that, presumably, will be defined by the courts through expensive litigation, but they necessitate new time-consuming (and expensive) procedures, without offsetting funds. An agency’s public records officer must now conduct a detailed analysis that is fraught with legal peril, thus requiring input from legal. The PRO must consider what information they need to determine whether substantial and irreparable damage is possible: to meet the standard of good faith, the PRO will need to evaluate the document, conduct research into publicly available records, or even attempt to contact the named individual—thus, in fact, providing the now prohibited third party notice.

Additionally, the application of exemptions is a fluid endeavor guided by the courts’ interpretation of the PRA. The proposed amendment’s requirement that there be a “reasonable belief” of an exemption

The proposed discouragement of third-party notifications would remove an important safeguard. While statutory exemptions are essential, the notification process provides transparency and due process to those whose information may be affected. Eliminating it could expose agencies to litigation risks and reduce trust among stakeholders. Retaining the option for third-party notifications without this vague threshold requirement ensures a balanced, fair process that protects all interests.

2. Proposal to Prioritize Requests Upon Demand Violates RCW 42.56.080 and Creates Costly Legal Risk for Agencies.

The proposed change to the model rules that would require agencies prioritize smaller or simpler requests over larger, more complex ones is inconsistent with RCW 42.56.080, which provides “[a]gencies shall not distinguish among persons requesting records, and such persons shall not be required to provide information as to the purpose for the request...” This first-come, first-serve approach is working - we work as quickly as possible to provide the best customer service possible using the resources available. Despite our best efforts, we frequently have requestors urging us—many times, using “colorful” language—to allow their request to “cut the line” because their purpose, from a real estate closing to an upcoming election, is an emergency for them. The proposed model rule conflicts with RCW 42.56.080’s prohibition on asking requestors the “when and why” behind their requests and will empower requestors to not only vie for priority by providing detailed accounts of the purpose for their request (which, itself, becomes a disclosable public record). But more troubling, it leaves the agency with another decision fraught with legal peril – a no-win situation. How do we weigh the import of the plea of a parent seeking a police report about a crime against their child against the urgings of an author on a deadline to publish an article on an investigation into a whistleblower’s complaint? We are prohibited by RCW 42.56.080 from prioritizing one request over another and implementing the model rules with the proposed modification will create legal liability for public agencies.

There is no justification to write the concept of prioritization into Chapter 42.56 RCW as the legislature’s inaction speaks volumes. The legislature has provided special accommodation under the PRA for individuals invoking the identify of “media”; for example, they have access to records unavailable to the public. Had the legislature intended for an expedited process for requests from the media, or anyone for that matter, they would have done so.

Beyond the legal conflict, the proposed method of prioritization injects subjectivity into objective processes that will undermine equitable access. While this framework may speed responses for straightforward requests, it risks delaying complex requests that often involve significant matters of public interest. Assessing the “time-sensitivity” of requests introduces a subjective element that may lead to inconsistent application and increased administrative burden.

Instead of this change, we encourage a more flexible approach that empowers agencies to manage workloads while maintaining fairness for all requesters.

3. Requiring agencies to pursue unresponsive requestors before closing unclaimed or abandoned requests would create significant operational challenges.

The proposed amendments to the model rules would require agencies to engage with unresponsive requestors before closing unclaimed or abandoned requests and result in a severe operational burden—an administrative nightmare in practice. Many cities have seen a sharp increase in abandoned requests—nearly doubling between 2018 and 2022. This is a

result, at least in part, of the use of the PRA for profit: from YouTube accounts that stream body camera footage abandoning requests in mass, to clearinghouse sites that list all vendors and their pricing, requests are submitted to mine for records to turn around and sell back to the public, but when timelines or associated statutory fees are too high, requests are abandoned without notice. Mandating additional follow-up for these unclaimed requests diverts limited staff resources from active matters and contributes to growing backlogs. Agencies need the ability to close out unclaimed or abandoned requests efficiently once a reasonable timeframe passes with inaction by the requestor. The proposed model rule modification creates a significant and operationally unnecessary burden of pursuing those individuals who clearly do not want to engage before the request can be closed.

4. Amendments Ignore Resource Constraints and Problems Created by Monetization of PRA

Requiring “diligent” installment processing without addressing underlying resource constraints places additional pressure on already overextended city staff to meet a vague and undefined standard. Local governments are committed to timely responses and there are already penalties in place for those agencies that take the summer off or are otherwise nonresponsive. Without additional support—whether through funding, staffing, or technology—these new expectations are not sustainable for agencies of all sizes, in practice.

Additionally, and unfortunately, the proposed model rules do not address a key factor that creates unnecessary delay in the process: the abuse of the public records act for monetary gain. A significant amount of resources are funneled to addressing broad requests designed to “catch” an agency just trying its best—these requests typically result in a monetary settlement demand from the requestor a few months after the request is closed. Similarly, many agencies face repeat requests from for-profit entities using the records for a commercial purposes that do not meet the narrow definition of 42.56.080. There are many legislative fixes to this problem that embrace transparency and efficient release of records. For example, the imposition of a claim notice process (similar to the tort claim process) where an agency gets an opportunity to resolve a disputed request before costly litigation and potential penalties is an easy and effective method for eliminating the use of the PRA solely for monetary gain and not in furtherance of transparency.

Recommendations for Improvement

To ensure that the final amendments achieve their intended goals while remaining practical and equitable, we respectfully recommend the following:

· Flexibility in Prioritization: Maintain the status quo, which allows agencies to scale prioritization systems suited to their capacity while maintaining fairness for all requesters.

· Support for Implementation: Include mechanisms for technical assistance or funding to address staffing and technology limitations.

· Preserve Third-Party Notifications: Retain this process without modification as a critical safeguard for sensitive records and a means to prevent unintended disclosures.

· Clear Guidance for Abandoned Requests: Provide explicit authority for agencies to close unclaimed or abandoned requests after reasonable notice without the need to chase down disinterested requestors for consensus.

The City of Raymond values the Attorney General’s leadership in promoting open government. With these adjustments, the proposed amendments can both enhance transparency and reflect the operational realities facing local governments. We welcome the opportunity to collaborate further on practical solutions that strengthen public trust and improve records management statewide.

Thank you for considering our comments and for your continued partnership in advancing transparency and accountability.

I am the interim deputy investigations editor at The Seattle Times, which joined in the 2024 media petition for improvements to the model rules. That petition described a “crisis” in access to public records. It mentioned “outrageously long time estimates for satisfying simple records requests” and “extreme backlogs” that interfered with the public’s right to learn about pressing concerns.

These problems still exist. Reporters still face long delays when asking for important public records. For example:

One of the reporters on my team recently requested a police officer timesheet record from a local police agency, hoping to hold police and the local government accountable. The request was simple; the agency already provided the exact same record for past years, and we were seeking the most recent year’s record. Nonetheless, the agency estimated that it would take 7 months to fulfill the request and said they process “all requests on a first come, first serve basis” and are “currently processing a backlog of several thousand open requests.”

This sort of delay prevents the public from understanding government operations when they are relevant, effectively nullifying the Public Records Act. There’s no more fundamental – or immediate – function of local government than policing. Members of the public need to able to assess police staffing levels in a reasonable timeframe to know if their families are safe. When an agency delays providing records by months, the relevance has passed, and people have no insight into government operations that directly affect their lives.

Reforms are overdue. The model rule changes proposed by your office should be adopted. Although they are not exactly what the media proposed and do not solve every concern (for example, they would not require agencies to accept fee payments online), they are a much-needed positive step towards fulfilling the promises of the Public Records Act. For more detail on why the changes are needed, please see the “explanation” after each of the media’s rule proposals^[1] and the media’s letter responding to informal comments on the petition.^[2]

Thank you for considering this comment in favor of the proposed rules.

Sincerely,

/s/ MIKE REICHER

1. Go to Rulemaking Activity | Washington State and click on “Proposed Text in Rulemaking Petition.”
   1. See ResponseToPRARulemakingInformalComments-v2.pdf.

On behalf of the Snohomish School District, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to the PRA model rules and have the following concerns:

• “Promptly” making records available. The term “promptly” could be read as shortening the statutory five-day response timeline. We ask for the clarification of “promptly” to mean acting reasonably and in good faith, not immediate production of records.
• Requiring all employees to transfer public records from personal devices “as soon as practicable” poses significant difficulties for any agency and will be impossible to manage. The tracking and transferring of every consequential message is not actionable without the implementation of new systems and costs.
• We urge the AGO to provide better guidance about what constitutes “reasonable belief” regarding third-party notification. The proposed standard is vague and has the potential to increase legal fees for agencies with already strapped budgets. We are educators, not lawyers.
• Request closure language. Requiring agencies to seek approval from a requestor prior to closing their request may lead to uncertainty if requestors do not respond. We ask for clear authority to close out requests after a sent closing letter and a district-defined non-response period (currently 30 days).

The Snohomish School District is committed to open government and to meeting our obligations under RCW 42.56. The proposed rule changes may distract from our primary responsibility and mission-educating students-and potentially diverting financial resources away from classrooms for costs we receive little to no compensation for. We respectfully ask the AGO to consider our comments when revising PRA policies to make sure they are practical, flexible, and achievable for all.

I live in a small Washington town where repeated requests for public records by a single individual have been so numerous that they can only be seen as harassment. The City staff has always done absolutely everything in their power to meet these requests in a timely and legal manner. Limited staff, lack of digitized records and hiccups along the way have led to lawsuits so numerous and in such amounts that my city has lost its insurance against such occurrences.  Yet another lawsuit was filed recently - with no city funds available to pay for this. It has been reported that this individual has gained $1 million over time from such demands in various places. His strategy is paying off for him!

I don't know what the answer is. Transparency is important. But there must be some way to stop someone from abusing this process of requests for public records for personal gain.

While I didn't explicitly say so, I'm hoping it's evident that my concern that with more regulations, guidelines, or such I fear there is even more opportunity for an abuser of the system to find ways to profit from the inevitable errors or delays. 

Please see the attached amended complaint filed in Snohomish County Superior Court against the City of Lynnwood over 2 years ago and still no records are being received. The penalty fees are accruing and they won't file any motion to dismiss or reach out to communicate.

This is most likely the largest public records lawsuit in history involving potentially hundreds of thousands of records allegedly concealed or deleted. It involves many public officials who were all working together to prevent the requester from getting their records.

The City of Lynnwood repeatedly refused to respond to appeals for records and you will see in the complaint that the chief of police signed two affidavits claiming he was deleting our records. After a complaint was filed against him with the WA CJTC, he told them the CJTC that I was trying to find records that showed one of the Lynnwood police officers had committed suicide. That was his reasoning which had nothing to do with him swearing on affidavits he was deleting public records.  In the summary judgment hearing the city attorney told the judge that the chief was "offended" that a complaint was filed and the judge said that was irrelevant.

The judge in the hearing clearly wanted this to go to trial because he said the public officials should have to come into court and explain their actions rather than having it decided in a summary judgement. Yet, we still won on one of the claims because the City admitted to erroneously redacting hundreds of records.

I was forced to file this lawsuit because every WA State agency and department I reached out to suggested that I bring the lawsuit, rather than be willing to communicate with the City and motivate them to comply with the law

The whole debacle happened when a councilmember became enraged by my email to her as I'm an activist. The way she retaliated was to withhold her text messages and claim she only had one. I then went to several other officials and they provided many texts to and from this councilmember and thus exposing that she had been concealing public records.

The city attorney for Lynnwood is a partner in a municipal law firm and her firm only makes money when Lynnwood gets sued. This was a clear conflict of interest and the legal advice these officials were being given appeared to be geared towards causing the City to be legally vulnerable. Other councilmembers have said that they were given bad advice and that they were going to pretend they were ignorant and didn't know any better when they claimed they had zero public records other than the City provided emails for 3-month periods of time. Every one of them claimed they had zero records (including text messages, voicemails, written documents and electronic documents) for 3-month time periods. I continued to broaden my requests, yet continued to yield zero results.

Two of the councilmembers wiped their ipads of all public records and turned their devices into the City for new laptops and again claimed they had zero records. The mayor claimed she did her job as mayor without creating ANY public records other than the emails the PRO was providing and this was after the city attorney was hired to review all her emails for redactions.

I had repeatedly warned them in emails that I would have to bring a lawsuit if they didn't comply with the law and they dug in their heels even more. Once I brought the lawsuit, they still refused to respond even to pretend that they may have made mistakes. It took litigation for them to finally admit to the erroneous redactions.

They did not file a motion to dismiss and when the City was still refusing to provide records after the lawsuit was filed, the city attorney objected to the amendment. Taxpayers had to pay for the city attorney to go to a hearing and she lost so we were able to amend the complaint. To date, Lynnwood taxpayers have paid over $60,000 and it hasn't even gone to trial. This doesn't include the claim we won but haven't yet scheduled the hearing for penalty and attorney fees.

When you read the lawsuit, you will be in shock as almost everyone is when they read it. When WACOG learned about it, they wanted to take over the lawsuit, not assist us towards any solution to the issues we were facing.

There is currently no way in WA to motivate a government agency to comply with the PRA. Additionally, the lawsuit we filed over 2 years ago is still sitting at the courthouse waiting to be litigated and we still don't have our records.

We look forward to WA AGO assisting requesters who are experiencing government abuse of power over the citizens who are supposed to be "controlling the instruments they created," according to the PRA.

I'm writing to submit a comment in support of the AGO's proposed rulemaking on the Public Records Act model rules. I am an attorney who represents families and children, mainly in special education due process proceedings.

Families need faster access to school records in order to monitor and improve services for their children. Too often school districts take months or even years to provide records to families, which negatively impacts parents' abilities to advocate for their children.

I urge you to adopt the proposed rules. 

I write in strong support of the proposed amendments to the Public Records Act (PRA) model rules in chapter 44-14 WAC, filed as WSR 25-20-108.

For more than 30 years, I have worked as a professional journalist based in Washington, including at The Seattle Times, The (Tacoma) News Tribune and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. More recently, I served as the first-ever national Freedom of Information Act reporter for NBC News, where I covered open-records issues and dealt with transparency laws across the United States. I currently work as an investigative reporter for U.S. Right To Know, a nonprofit news organization dedicated to government transparency issues nationwide. Over my career, I have filed thousands of public records requests and have relied extensively on Washington’s PRA to report on matters of public accountability. I submit these comments in my individual capacity as a frequent requester who has witnessed firsthand how well-crafted transparency laws empower the public, and how weak ones fail it.

In my view, Washington’s PRA remains one of the strongest public records laws in the nation because it is rooted in the principles of prompt disclosure, fullest assistance and liberal construction in favor of access. Yet over time, its effectiveness has been eroded by the growing number of statutory exemptions and by agency practices that too often emphasize unnecessary delay, obstruction or complexity. Despite these challenges, the PRA retains the potential to serve as a national model. The Attorney General’s proposed updates to chapter 44-14 WAC represent a meaningful step toward restoring that promise by aligning the model rules with current case law, clarifying agency obligations and reinforcing diligence and promptness in disclosure.

I support the proposed amendments in their entirety. Specifically, I note the following key improvements:

• Reflecting Cousins v. Department of Corrections (3 Wn.3d 19, 546 P.3d 415 (2024)) – The new requirement for closure notices to include the closure date, notice of the one-year statute of limitations and an invitation for follow-up questions will bring clarity and consistency while reducing unnecessary litigation.
• Emphasizing promptness and diligence – Revisions to WAC 44-14-010, -020, -030, and -040 reaffirm the black letter of law in the PRA requiring that agencies must respond promptly, process requests efficiently, and provide records in logical installments without using installments to delay disclosure.
• Clarifying index obligations – Differentiating state and local agency duties regarding records indices, consistent with RCW 42.56.070, eliminates long-standing confusion and promotes compliance.
• Providing clearer guidance on third-party notices, automated (“bot”) requests and oral requests – These sections strike a practical balance between agency efficiency and public access, reducing friction between requesters and agencies.
• Modernizing language and accessibility – The adoption of gender-neutral and plain-language updates modernizes the rules and promotes inclusion and comprehension.
• Clearer closure and follow-up procedures – Revised provisions make it easier for requesters to understand when an agency has completed a response and what remedies are available if disclosure obligations are not met.

Taken together, these revisions strengthen the model rules’ utility for both agencies and requesters, enhancing government transparency and the public’s right to know.

In addition to the proposed recommendations, I also urge the AGO to include a provision explicitly authorizing and encouraging agencies to accept electronic payment for copying, postage, and customized service charges. Many, if not most, agencies already do this, but several key outliers remain. Codifying an electronic payment option would eliminate uncertainty, reduce administrative burden and align the PRA with modern payment practices. A simple addition to WAC 44-14-07001 or a new subsection under WAC 44-14-040 could state: "Agencies should accept payment for copies, postage or customized services electronically (e.g. via credit card, ACH, or online payment portal) and should provide requesters with electronic payment options when feasible."

This small enhancement would further the Act’s purpose of promoting efficiency and fullest assistance.

As a separate but related matter, I also strongly urge the Attorney General’s Office to restore and fully fund its Open Government Ombuds Office. For many years, this office appointed an assistant attorney general to provide invaluable, impartial assistance to both agencies and the public on open government matters, including acting as a liaison for resolving PRA questions and disputes collaboratively. I can personally attest that direct assistance from former Open Government Ombuds Tim Ford and Nancy Krier helped two of the news agencies where I previously worked avoid costly litigation with local governments. In recent years, however, the office and its mission seem to have been relegated to afterthought status, with the loss of a dedicated employee to serve in the position and greatly diminished access, availability and assistance to the public. This has left a serious gap in Washington’s open-government infrastructure. Reinstating the office at full capacity would complement the proposed model rule updates and reaffirm Washington’s national leadership in transparency.

Thank you for advancing these thoughtful, practical amendments. The media petition for rulemaking—and the AGO’s responsive, well-considered updates—demonstrate that the PRA can evolve to meet contemporary needs while staying true to its core purpose. I respectfully encourage adoption of the proposed rules, including the suggested electronic payment provision, and separately urge restoration of the Open Government Ombudsman’s Office and its functions.

 

The Society of Professional Journalists’ Western Washington Pro Chapter strongly urges approval of these updated rules.

Journalists need timely records to investigate misconduct, inform the public and drive reforms that protect communities. But too often, public agencies use delay tactics and procedural barriers to prevent this. 

They send third-party legal notices even when no exemption exists, refuse installment releases that would provide records as they're assembled and use standardized response times that ignore whether requests are simple or complex. By the time records arrive—months, and sometimes years later—news is obsolete and officials have escaped accountability.

These rule changes will ensure Washington’s public records law delivers on its promise of transparency, rather than enabling government secrecy.

My name is Staci Patton and I am a citizen/tax payer of Skamania County. I am not eloquent with my words, but I would like to submit a public comment specific to the "third party notice" rcw. There needs to be clear

language related to third party notices, when the subject has already been given a third party notice, and did not object to the release of records or lost a previous ruling related to records already disclosed. For

example, in 2021 I did a public records request to the Clark County Sheriff's office on former employee Ryan Taylor. They immediately sent him a third party notice, which led to a lawsuit(of which I won). As that

lawsuit drug out, another citizen in Skamania County put in a records request in Skamania County as we had learned that the records had already been disclosed as a public records request by an attorney, just

3 years prior(and at that time this officer was given a third party notice and did not fight it). So, 2 needless lawsuits took place, over records that had already been previously disclosed. Once those records

were released in 2018, that should have been the end of it.

The Records and Disclosure unit at the Dept. of Licensing (DOL) recognizes the on-going needs for clarity and revision in RCW and WAC in order to better support the ideals of the Public Records Act. The current landscape of records and technology, the interplay of statute and case law, and the complexity of requests for records combine to create a minefield through which agencies must navigate on a daily basis. We appreciate Attorney General Brown’s intent to create, “model rules aimed at helping agencies across the state increase transparency and responsiveness to requests.”

We also see that many of these proposed changes were petitioned for by a very narrow subset of records requestors. Media and news organizations appear to seek changes to increase the speed of agency response and production of records by encouraging agencies to comply with due dates and urgency as described by the requestor. They also seek to limit the context in which an agency can provide third party notice prior to releasing records. These changes are not supported by data.

According to the most recent data available through the JLARC public records reporting dashboard, Washington agencies received 437,813 public records requests in 2023; 7103 of those were from the media. That is approximately 1.62% of all requests for public records. Additionally, 55% of all requests received are closed within 5 days or less, with the average days to disposition being just 25. These numbers are very encouraging, showing timely responses and diligent work in getting records out to those who need them. Here at DOL, just 21 of our over 25,000 public records requests were from members of the media.

We have reviewed the proposed changes and have the following feedback:

44-14-010: no concerns with the proposed changes. A definition of “prompt” might be helpful.

44-14-020: no concerns about proposed changes.

44-14-030(2): There is a real lack of clarity here and the proposed changes do very little to help agencies understand their obligations.

44-14-030(3): Strongly object to this change. Agencies maintain records in databases of varying complexity. The technical knowledge requires to search any database, much less multiple databases, is a very high burden. Allowing options to delegate the search duties would allow this task to live with subject matter experts (SME). These SMEs are also going to be more effective in protecting potentially responsive records from inappropriate destruction.

44-14-040(1) and (3): We are deeply concerned about the proposed change. The proposed rule to triage requests and categorize them opens many, many new avenues for risk. We understand that requestors are often frustrated by the speed with which they receive records. We do not believe this proposed change will resolve that issue. Agencies cannot be expected to prioritize the needs of requestors. Many agencies already diligently work to provide records in a way that meets the needs and timelines of requestors.

44-14-040(4): No concerns.

44-14-040(6): We are concerned about the impact of this proposed change. We believe that there are circumstances where persons named in records have the right to know about the disclosure even if no basis for an injunction exists. An example of this is notification to a parent when their child is named in a record but the parent is not. Another example is a complaint where the complainant has requested anonymity. There are many, many other circumstances where pre-disclosure notice is of value. Further, we cannot always know when an injunction would be granted when there is a potential protection for a record. A primary example of this is judicial discretion exercised in protecting proprietary information. Information that we might not view as propriety might be protected after the affected party presents their argument to a judge. Limiting agencies’ discretion in providing notice has the potential to harm the public and businesses.

44-14-040(8), (10): No concerns, although we do not see value in the proposed change.

44-14-040(12): This proposed change provides helpful clarification.

Please update the Model Rules to signal to state agencies and local governments that the status quo is simply not living up to what voters required when they passed the Public Records Act. (Example: One reporter at the Seattle Times, which spearheaded this petition, was told to wait 10 months when he requested a single document from the Seattle Police Department.)

A free press and access to our government is essential to democracy.

I respect your time and efforts to fulfill our needs. The access to documents that can be accessed by Freedom of Information Act requests has been lengthy and burdensome for e employees tasked with fulfilling thesis. The new Model Rules may  provide guidance to simplify this process and make this more helpful to the public and to our workflow for public service.

I hope this will improve the timeliness of fulfilling requests and offer help to define how and when these request are best filed.

I understand that Attorney General Nick Brown is looking at the prospect of tightening up the Model Rules for Public Disclosure, which is also the subject of a petition by many in the news media.

I write in support of this effort. My father, State Sen. Bruce A. Wilson of Omak, and a weekly newspaper publisher, was the floor leader in the Senate that led to passage of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) in the early 1970s, at the time that the Public Disclosure Act (PDA) was approved in the initiative process by the voters.

The preamble to both the OPMA and the PDA baldly state what the citizens of Washington want: That the governments we hire must share information with the public so that the public can remain informed and engaged in directing our government to do what we want.

Delays in releasing public documents is tantamount to not releasing them at all. The delays mean information that is relevant now may become irrelevant later. This is in direct contradiction to the spirit of our open government laws.

I urge the Attorney General to update the Model Rules to promote rapid release of public records at all levels of government.

I’m a Washington State resident writing in support of the news media asking the Washington Attorney General’s Office to tighten up its Model Rules For Public Disclosure. Please attend to this.

This requires that “government agencies deliver public records "promptly" in responding to requests under the Public Records Act. That's what's required under the initiative passed by an overwhelming majority of Washington voters.” (Washington Coalition for Open Government, 11/13/2025 email). The rule must be updated to ensure that response time is far quicker.

I support a petition by the news media asking the Washington Attorney General’s Office to tighten up its Model Rules For Public Disclosure. We the people want transparency in a statue!

The Washington Coalition for Open Government is supporting this effort to ensure government agencies deliver public records "promptly" in responding to requests under the Public Records Act. That's what's required under the initiative passed by an overwhelming majority of Washington voters.

Release of government documents under the PRA is currently happening at far too slow of a pace. Reporting agencies recorded a nearly 60% increase in wait times for records requests between 2019 and 2024, according to data from the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee.

The attorney general should update the Model Rules to signal to state agencies and local governments that the status quo is simply not living up to what voters required when they passed the Public Records Act. (Example: One reporter at the Seattle Times, which spearheaded this petition, was told to wait 10 months when he requested a single document from the Seattle Police Department.) 

Robert McClure

Co-founder, InvestigateWest, 2009-2021

Knight Science Journalism Fellow, MIT, 2016-17

Knight-Wallace Journalism Fellow, University of Michigan, 1996-97
Chair, Society of Environmental Journalists Editorial Advisory Board

Board member, Washington Coalition for Open Government

I write in support of the news media petition to modify Model Rules for implementation of the Public Records Act.

In my experience as a journalist and as an open-government advocate, I have witnessed first-hand how the current implementation of the PRA does not match the voters’ original vision that public records be released “promptly.” It’s particularly concerning that the wait time for public records increased 60% between 2019 and 2024, according to government agencies’ reporting to the Joint Legislative Auditing and Review Committee.

The changes your office is proposing would be a great first step to ensure that the vision of the voters for transparent state and local governments is maintained, even in this era when trust of government among residents has dropped. This would be a positive step forward and your assurance to citizens that you as Attorney General stand for open and transparent government in our state.

Please pass the rule revisions your office has proposed.

I am writing to request the AGO adopt the changes you have proposed (in response to a media petition) for the PRA model rules.

In my experience, agencies far too often fail to comply with RCW 42.56.100, particularly in connection with the duty to disclose records "promptly" in a manner that provides "fullest assistance." 

I trust that you and your staff are aware that the Joint Legislative Auditing and Review Committee (JLARC) has reported that wait times for public records increased 60% between 2019 and 2024.

Candidly, there is much open government work to be done within the Attorney General's Office, and in many state agencies.  That said, nevertheless, your proposal is a positive step forward, and I am encouraged by your public assurances that as Attorney General you stand for open and transparent government in our state.

The Washington Newspaper Publishers is supportive of adoption of the new Model Rules for implementation of the Public Records Act.

Our members are experiencing unnecessary delays in the fulfilment of records. The state has already seen tens of thousands of dollars paid out in PRA lawsuits. The inclusion of new digital communications methods is leading to willful deletion of records. And a rising culture of a lack of transparency is endangering our democracy.

We appreciate your consideration of the new rules and of the public participation in the process.

While we encourage you to pass these rules, we also encourage you to consider the invaluable changes proposed by the Washington Coalition for Open Government. 

AG Nick Brown needs to ensure government agencies deliver public records "promptly" in responding to requests under the Public Records Act. That's what's required under the initiative passed by an overwhelming majority of Washington voters.   

The attorney general should update the Model Rules to signal to state agencies and local governments that the status quo is simply not living up to what voters required when they passed the Public Records Act.  Being told to wait "10 months" is unacceptable. 

I spoke at the hearing on behalf of the Washington Coalition for Open Government in support of the proposed model rules changes involving issues including promptness, triage and limits on third-party notification as well as some other adaptations WashCOG would like to see.

Here, I offer my support as a former journalist for 35 years. I understand their challenges first-hand. While the clerks and PROs speaking against the proposed changes certainly have some points about underfunding and disparities among staff size, I find it hard to believe that asking them to be prompt (without definition) and reasonable rather than rigid adds to their workload. In fact, removing the pressure to notify third parties in every instance should be a real time-saver.

Thank you for pressing forward with these changes. 

I write in support of the petition to modify Model Rules for implementation of the Public Records Act.

In my experience as a reporter, I have seen how the implementation of the PRA does not match voters’ original vision that public records be released “promptly.” According to JLARC, wait times  increased 60% between 2019 and 2024. One records request I filed was still being filled 6 years later, when I left my job had to pass it on to a new reporter.

The changes your office is proposing would be a great first step to ensure that voters' vision for transparent state and local governments is maintained.

Please pass the rule revisions.

It is time to update the Model Rules so that state agencies and local governments meet their obligations for prompt response to requests under the Public Records Act.

The pace government agencies deliver public records under the Public Records Act is simply too slow. For example, it is unacceptable for it to take 10 months for a Seattle Times reporter to get a requested document from the Seattle Police Department.

An overwhelming majority of Washington voters made their voices clear that they want accountability by passing the Public Records Act. With waiting times up by 60% from 2019 to 2024 according to the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee, the state is failing to meet its obligations.

With Nick Brown now Attorney General, I hope reforms will respond to the people by enforcing the spirit of this important transparency statute.

I am in full support of the proposed rules changes associated with public records requests under WSR 25-20-108.

The ability of the press, and the public in general, to speedily and fully access public information is vital to the maintenance of our democracy. Without prompt, easy and as full access as is reasonable for public safety, government agencies or officials acting in bad faith cannot be called to task for their poor behavior.

Even now we are working on stories associated with local utility districts, city offices, elected officials and other special purpose districts. Each of these stories, if we are to produce them in a manner that makes them actionable for the electorate, requires prompt and fairly comprehensive access to public records.

I encourage the passage of any rule or law that further enhances journalists' and citizens' access to public information. Such access is vital to our work and to the solvency of our democracy.

Hi I am writing in support of a petition by the news media asking the Washington Attorney General’s Office to tighten up its Model Rules For Public Disclosure - and promptly respond to all public records requests  

The state and local government officials must adhere to state law approved by our citizens  Cases like Valderrama versus Sammamish where local officials blatantly destroy state records with no consequences and delay in responding and submit scores of false affidavits can not be permitted  

The release of documents under the PRA is currently happening at a snail's pace.  Reporting agencies recorded a nearly 60% increase in wait times for records requests between 2019 and 2024, according to data from the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee.  This needs to be fixed.  I urge the Attorney General's office to update the Model Rules to signal to state agencies and local governments that the status quo is simply not living up to what voters required when they passed the Public Records Act.  No reporter should be told to expect to wait 10 months for a single document from the Seattle Police Department.

Please fix this.

I’m writing in support of the proposed Model Rules for Washington’s Public Records Act (PRA). These rules represent a long-overdue update to one of the state’s most important transparency laws. Voters created the PRA with a clear expectation: government records must be accessible promptly, efficiently, and openly. Yet access has steadily eroded in recent years. This trend undermines public trust and hampers the public’s ability to understand and evaluate government actions.

The proposed Model Rules would help reverse that decline and bring needed clarity, consistency, and modern practices to agencies statewide.
 

The proposed rules are essential to: reinforce timely access to records; modernize records organization and preservation; improve transparency in request processing; ensure clear and fair closing procedures; prevent abuse of third-party notification.
I’d recommend these additional improvements as well: require acceptance of electronic payments and default to electronic delivery; Expand and clarify search requirements; Prevent misuse of “transitory” designations.
 

To further strengthen the rules and make them more consistent with modern expectations. Adopting – and strengthening – the proposed Model Rules will help restore transparency, reduce inefficiencies, and uphold the intent of Washington voters who demanded an open government. These improvements are necessary to ensure that the PRA remains a meaningful and modern tool for public accountability.
 

Thank you for your consideration and for your commitment to transparent government. I urge you to support these essential updates.
 

I urge you to adopt the proposed revisions to your agency's model rules for the Public Records Act.

The PRA in operation today is a far cry from the transparency law our state's voters envisioned when they overwhelmingly passed Initiative 276 in 1972.

Requesters are waiting longer for their records. The state Legislature has passed more than 700 exemptions to the act, with no signs of slowing down.

Some statutes, such as third-party notifications, double as techniques for delaying disclosures. I could go on.

The public is harmed in all cases because they have less timely information about the agencies they are supposed to oversee under our form of government.

Please adopt the model rule changes as proposed.

I want to commend you and the staff of the Office of the Attorney General for your proposed update to the Model Rules for the Public Records Act, and encourage their adoption as proposed with several additions explained in the attached comments.

My name is Mitch Patton, and I am a resident of Skamania County. I have been actively submitting Public Records Requests (PRRs) for a little over six years, and through this work I have encountered several recurring problems that I believe point to gaps or weaknesses in the current Public Records Act (PRA). I am writing to request the Attorney General’s Office to review these issues and provide feedback on whether they may warrant consideration for clarification, rulemaking, or legislative reform. As it seems Skamania county is falling in upholding the PRA in many ways on a day to day basis.

1. Requirement or Pressure to Use a Portal
Many agencies strongly push requesters to use a specific online portal instead of accepting requests by email. Email submission is essential for accessibility and equity, and any future guidance or legislation should ensure that email remains a valid and protected method for submitting PRRs.

2. “Timely Manner” Needs a Clearer Standard or changed to a better word then TIMELY
The PRA’s requirement to respond in a “timely manner” is too vague and unevenly applied. Some PRRs could easily be answered by a department head within minutes—especially those involving current, active projects—yet are delayed for weeks. Clarifying what “timely” means, or establishing stronger benchmarks, would greatly improve accountability. I have had PRRs open for over a year and many times it takes 4-5 months to get  PRRs fulfilled.  I also feel I still have open PRRs that are well over 1 year old but have been lost somehow here in skamania county public records office and skamania county sheriff office as well . 

3. Public Records Officers Working From Home
Here in Skamania County, the Public Records Officer frequently performs government records searches from home and often sends responses late at night. I guess he could be in the prosecutor's office but it seems 8-9 oclock at night is an odd hour for the courthouse to be open to staff and sometimes its on weekends   This raises concerns about:

• the security of records,
• the completeness of searches,
• and the professionalism and reliability of late-night work potentially affected by alcohol or marijuana use. Both are legal now in Washington state for personal use.  
  It may be worth considering whether the PRA or related regulations should require Public Records Officers to work from an official office setting when handling and reviewing government records.

4. Excessive Clarification Emails Used as Delay Tactics or flat out just closing request.  
It is common for the Public Records Officer here in skamania county to send multiple rounds of clarification emails—sometimes far more than reasonably necessary. This appears to be used at times as a way to delay fulfillment or pause the statutory deadlines. Guidance or a limit on repeated clarification requests may help prevent misuse of this provision. I have also found out in the last 3-4 years our public records officer has been closing cases do to lack of clarity he keeps asking for time and time again many times i just asked him to fill my request to the best of his ability because my PRR was written clearly so he could do his best to fill that request but i found out now he just closes the cases altogether and this is a problem today.Our sheriff's department won't even send 5 day notices any longer this need attention as well. Skamania county is failing miserably fulfilling PRRs.

5. . Duplicate Records and Lack of Organizational Order in Productions

In several PRRs I have received hundreds of documents where a third or more were duplicates. This causes confusion, wastes time, and creates the appearance of carelessness or intentional padding of the response. In addition, many productions are disorganized, with documents scattered randomly instead of being grouped or filed in order.

To improve transparency and reduce unnecessary burden on requestors, I believe agencies should be required to:

• make reasonable efforts to remove duplicate records before production, and
• organize documents in chronological order (by date and time) rather than submitting them in a scattered or disordered format.

This would create clearer, more accurate productions and reduce the likelihood of duplicate or misfiled documents.

6. PRA Drift and Lack of Accountability
Overall, it increasingly feels like the Public Records Act is drifting away from its original intent. Agencies often have broad leeway to delay or redirect PRRs with little consequence unless a requester has the resources to pursue litigation. This imbalance is making transparency more difficult for everyday citizens.

7. Need for a Public Advocate or Oversight Mechanism
Given the increasing complexity of the process and the power imbalance between agencies and requestors, I believe the public needs an advocate—possibly through the Attorney General’s Office—to help ensure that PRRs are fulfilled in a manner consistent with the mission and spirit of the PRA. I hate to say this out loud but the AGs office could run complaints through AI for compliance then send violations to a advacut for clarification it's  just an idea.I know when I have ran a few of my PRRs sent back for clarification AI has found no need for clarification and finds the county could be in violation of the PRA. Again just an idea to use AI to cut down on back logs. It's cheap and efficient but needs the human factor still to be in place.      

I respectfully request your feedback on these concerns and whether they may merit consideration for rulemaking, policy guidance, or legislative reform in the coming years.

Thank you for your time and for your continued work supporting open government and transparency. If you would like I can do a PRRs to our public records officer here in skamania county for all PRRs and all emails sent back to me for clarification the number is alarming and I have sent a few request for this information and have not gotten any response I think I may have got one instalment a few years ago and that was it nothing since then

Please register my opinion and request for rule changes addressing the need for more prompt and facilitated response by state government agencies to FOIA requests. 

Release of government documents under the PRA is currently happening at far too slow of a pace. Reporting agencies recorded a nearly 60% increase in wait times for records requests between 2019 and 2024, according to data from the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee.

The attorney general should update the Model Rules to signal to state agencies and local governments that the status quo is simply not living up to what voters required when they passed the Public Records Act

I am writing to express unequivocal support for the Attorney General’s proposed revisions to the Public Records Act Model Rules, as well as the additional recommendations offered by the Washington Coalition for Open Government (WCOG). These changes are not merely technical adjustments — they are necessary corrections to a system that has drifted too far from the voters’ intent and too far from basic accountability.

I say this from direct experience. Years ago, my wife and I uncovered serious misconduct within the Portland Police Bureau. The records we fought for — ultimately in a case that reached the Oregon Supreme Court — forced policy changes that would never have happened without access to public records. The Public Records Act is one of the few tools that allows ordinary citizens to confront misconduct, expose errors, and compel government transparency. When agencies delay, withhold, or hide records, they are undermining a core democratic safeguard.

That is why these proposed rule changes matter. Reinforcing prompt access to records, requiring proper preservation (including records on personal devices), tightening standards for third-party delay notices, and demanding reasonable, well-explained timelines are not burdens — they are obligations that agencies should have met already. The PRA must work in practice, not just on paper.

WCOG’s testimony aligns with the lived experience of many requesters across the state. Too often, agencies have used ambiguity, delay, or technicalities to frustrate legitimate requests. Their recommendations strengthen the Attorney General’s proposal and help ensure the PRA functions as the voters intended when they approved its forerunner more than 50 years ago.

The Public Records Act exists to keep government open, honest, and accountable. These rule changes, and WCOG’s suggested enhancements, are overdue steps back toward that principle.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Hi I am writing in support of a petition by the news media asking the Washington Attorney General’s Office to tighten up its Model Rules For Public Disclosure - and promptly respond to all public records requests  

The state and local government officials must adhere to state law approved by our citizens  Cases like Valderrama versus Sammamish where local officials blatantly destroy state records with no consequences and delay in responding and submit scores of false affidavits can not be permitted  

Many of the proposed changes appear to be geared toward making agencies process records requests faster. Indeed, a recent Attorney General news release states the proposed changes “…would help public agencies across the state develop timely and diligent responses to records requests.” In the same news release the AG’s office describes their requests doubling to 1032 in 2024. The AG’s office was able to stand up a dedicated unit “with additional resources and leadership.” Unfortunately, most local governmental agencies do not have the resources to create an entire dedicated unit to solely process public records requests. This is despite the fact that their volume is often significantly higher. For some perspective, last year the City of Kennewick received nearly 4,000 requests just for police records alone. Our position is that updating the model rules with the unrealistic standards and ambiguous language currently proposed will not produce records faster, but it will make current backlogs even worse.

Backlogs in public records requests exist because producing records is inherently time-consuming, even for what may appear to be a simple or straightforward request. LEIRA agencies support and value the Public Records Act’s (PRA) purpose of promoting transparency in government; however, the PRA remains an unfunded mandate. Most agencies simply do not have the budget to hire additional staff or to ensure that existing staff receive the extensive and ongoing training necessary to keep pace with rapidly evolving PRA case law and technology.

Despite these limitations, records requests continue to increase in both volume and complexity each year. In many agencies, public records personnel are also responsible for other full-time duties with their own statutory deadlines and legal obligations. Yet, the PRA’s directive that responding to requests should not

“excessively interfere with other essential functions of the agency” is often disregarded in practice.

It is critical to recognize that most of us processing public records are not attorneys—we are records professionals doing our best to comply with the law. However, the proposed model rule changes raise significant concern. The use of ambiguous and subjective terminology risks creating new grounds for costly and time-consuming litigation. Our member agencies fear these proposed changes could evolve into de facto requirements that increase liability for agencies that are already overextended.

For agencies or individuals who willfully delay or withhold records, existing remedies already provide a means of accountability. The vast majority of agencies, however, are acting in good faith and are committed to timely and transparent disclosure. The real challenge is the sheer volume and complexity of modern requests, which frequently require coordination across multiple departments—all while balancing the provision of other critical public services.

Records request backlogs are not a result of neglect or indifference; they are a symptom of overwhelming demand and insufficient resources. We respectfully urge the Attorney General’s Office to carefully review our forthcoming written comments and to fully consider the operational realities of agencies struggling under current workloads. Please do not move forward with rules that are ambiguous, subjective, or that impose unrealistic expectations on already burdened public agencies.

More of our concerns below,

• Inserts “…most timely possible action on requests…” WAC 44-14-020(3) pg. 2
  • Who defines?
• “(If a local agency is opting out of the index requirement.) The [agency] finds that maintaining an index of (specify which type of records) is unduly burdensome and would interfere with [agency] operations …” WAC 44-14-030(2) pg. 2
  • Specifying which records are burdensome to index is, in essence, requiring an index of records.
• Inserts that records be “accessible to staff responsible for searching and producing records.” WAC 44-14-030(3) pg. 2
  • Many agencies have restrictions on who can have access confidential/sensitive information.
• “[Triage] requests into simple and complex tracks…where a request has been made for a single, specific, identifiable record, the [agency] will endeavor to produce the request within five business days if practicable to do so.” WAC 44-14-040(1) pg. 6
  • For a lot of agencies, five days will never be practicable. How would “single, specific, identifiable records” be defined? Single, specific and identifiable does not necessarily equal simple (i.e., the “single” homicide report).
• “When evaluating the nature of the request, 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 practicable to produce the records in the time frame provided by the requestor.” WAC 44-14-040(3) pg. 6
  • Too subjective. May give the requester unrealistic expectations that the agency will produce records within the timeframe they identify.
• Significant changes to third-party notification. WAC 44-14-040(6) pg. 7
• Allows (requires?) more than 30 days for the requester to claim or review assembled records if “…agreed upon by the agency and the requestor.” WAC 44-14-040(8)(b) pg. 8

Expectation to make such agreements?

Submission of comments from Spokane Police Department, Spokane, WA:

1. Proposed Amendment:  Triage requests into simple and complex tracks to ensure that processing times are proportionate to the difficulty of each request.

Comment from Spokane Police Department Public Records Officer:  Agencies must spend significant staff time to research to determine if a request is “difficult”. For example, an officer-worn body camera video may only be 5 minutes in length, but could take 60+ minutes to redact.   Extensive review of records is necessary in order to determine complexity and estimate staff time.

2. Proposed Amendment:  Provide records with their initial five-day response where the request is for a single, specific, identifiable record:

Comment from Spokane Police Department Public Records Officer:  A request for a “single record” is broad and vague.  A “single record” may be a simple shoplifting report, or it could be an investigative case file related to a homicide or other serious crime.  The volume of documents within a “single record” varies greatly. 

This comment is being submitted on behalf of the Washington State Housing Finance Commission (the “Commission”) in response to the AGO request for comment on the Public Records Act proposed rule in WSR 25-20-108.

The Commission is  supportive of the transparency goals and principles behind the Public Records Act (PRA) and does not object to the proposed rulemaking. However, the Commission suggests that the rules should strike a balance that maintains transparency and accountability goals while also addressing the proliferation of records requests and the resulting significant costs in both time and money to governments. Governments are experiencing serial requestors, overbroad blanket requests for "all documents" and "all emails" with few or no time limits, and requestors using the PRA as a tool for harassment and retaliation.  In some cases, requestors are actively attempting to trip up governments in order to exact monetary penalties.

The Commission suggests that a mechanism be adopted to deal with requests intended to harass and retaliate against governments. For instance, we would suggest the establishment of a streamlined quasi-judicial process that would permit governments to seek relief from serial requestors or deliberately overbroad requests intended for harassment or retaliation. 

We also note that the fee provisions in the PRA have not been modernized to reflect that records are primarily being kept in electronic form on multiples types of devices.  The outdated PRA fee provisions assume that electronic records are easier to identify and transmit than paper records.  It does not account for the specialized staff and skills needed to diligently collect, search, review, and redact electronic records, as opposed to copying paper file.  As requests grow in complexity and frequency, governments are being forced to consider using specialized information technology to assist with responding in a timely manner.  The fee for electronic records should be adjusted to account for the cost of technology.

These proposals would protect the important role of the PRA in promoting transparency by helping governments respond to records requests in a timely manner while not detracting from their mission.

Please support of the news media asking the Washington Attorney General’s Office to tighten up its Model Rules For Public Disclosure.  

As James Madison, 1822 stated:

“A popular Government, Without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce of Tragedy; or, perhaps both.  Knowledge will forever govern ignorance”  And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

I am the Woodinville City Attorney. I write on behalf of the City of Woodinville to comment upon proposed revisions to the Model Public Records Act Rules. While the City appreciates revisions from the draft rules upon which the City commented on January 2, 2025, the following proposed revisions remain problematic for the reasons discussed below.

WAC 44-14-030(3) - Prioritizing Requests

The City of Woodinville previously commented on a prior proposed revision to WAC 44-14-030(3), which would have added:

When evaluating the nature of the request, the [name of agency] should consider whether time is of the essence such as when records are needed for participation in a hearing, public comment process or election or to deal with an urgent safety or health issue or other matter that is known to be of pressing and time-sensitive importance.

The City commented: “This adds a subjective component to timing of requests that invites conflict with the prohibition on discriminating between requestors.”

The current rulemaking proposal is to amend this subsection to state:

When evaluating the nature of the request, 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 practicable to produce the records in the time frame provided by the requestor.

While this is narrowed from the prior proposal, it remains subjective in that it considers the interests or goals of the requestor and therefore is at odds with the PRA’s prohibition on discriminating between requestors. PROs should not be placed in a position of making subjective and potentially unlawful distinctions between requests or requestors.

WAC 44-14-040(6) - Third Party Notice

The City previously commented on a prior proposed revision to WAC 44-14-040(6), which would have added:

In the event that a requested record contains information that may substantially and irreparably damage a person if disclosed, the (name of agency) will first determine if that record is exempt from disclosure. If no exemption applies, the (name of agency) will make the record available to the requestor without notifying a third party of an opportunity to obtain an injunction. If(name of agency) is unable to determine applicability of an exemption to a record that may substantially and irreparably damage a person if disclosed, the public records officer may, but is not required to, give notice to such person. Before giving such notice, the records officer shall contact the requester and offer an opportunity to revise the request to avoid a third-party process. Any third-party notice will include a copy of the request and shall inform the third party that disclosure will occur unless an injunction is obtained under RCW 42.56.540 within 10 days of the notice.

The City commented:

“Substantially and irreparably damage” is not in the statute and an unreasonable expectation of PROs; courts are far better positioned to make that determination. The statute also does not limit third party notice to instances where the PRO determines that a record is or may be exempt. The PRO is also not a mediator and should not be required to go back to the requestor on behalf of a potentially-affected third party. Ten days to obtain an injunction is also not statutory, and while it may be reasonable in some instances, there may be cases, e.g., where the volume of responsive records is very large, when a longer period is reasonable.

The current rulemaking proposal is to amend this subsection to state:

In the event that the requested records contain information, the disclosure of which may substantially and irreparably damage any person or vital governmental function, the public records officer may, prior to providing the records, give notice to a person named in such records or to whom the records specifically pertain. Before sending a notice, an agency should have a reasonable belief that the records are arguably exempt from disclosure. Such notice should be given so as to make it possible for the requestor to revise the request, or, if necessary, allow the affected person to seek an order from a court to prevent or limit the disclosure. The notice to the affected person will include a copy of the request and inform them that the disclosure will occur on a date certain, generally within 10 business days of the notice, unless an injunction is obtained under RCW 42.56.540.

This proposal remains problematic and inconsistent with RCW 42.56.520 with respect to third party notice. The statute authorizing third party notice requires only that the person or agency receiving such notice be “affected by the request.” It does not require, as this revision would purport to do:

• That disclosure of responsive records might substantially and irreparably damage any person or vital governmental function; such a determination is a function for the courts, not PROs.
• That the responsive records name or specifically pertain to the person or agency receiving third party notice; the statute allows notice to any third person or agency “affected by the request.”
• That the responding agency or its PRO conclude that responsive records be arguably exempt from disclosure; the statute allows notice regardless of the likely applicability of any particular exemption and does not require the agency to purport to make such determination.
• That a requestor be allowed to revise a request, apparently as a precondition to the notified party being given time, “if necessary,” to seek a court order.
  • This again places a PRO in the position of a mediator or go-between, which is not the PRO’s function.
  • PROs should not be placed in the position of asking a requestor if they will revise a request in order to avoid third party notice, and there is no statutory support for requiring this.
  • The proviso, “if necessary,” is ambiguous and suggests a limitation on third party notice, and/or third party injunctive action, that is contrary to the statute.
• That a third party’s window to seek injunctive relieve “generally” be limited to ten business days. The reasonableness of an agency’s promptness in responding to a request—including the amount of time provided for a third party to seek injunctive relief—is dependent upon the specific circumstances of the request, including the nature and volume of potentially responsive records.

The City of Woodinville appreciates AGO’s consideration of this commentary. Please feel free to reach out if there are any questions.

The Honorable Attorney General Brown,

I support the rule revisions to speed up release of public records.

I am writing to share my experience as a mother of a special needs child who attended Lake Washington School District schools and the challenges I have faced and continue to experience in getting public records requests related to my child and her education and the decisions made by district educators and administrators on her IEP. On October 16, 2024 I requested records via the process outlined on the district's website. Unfortunately, the fulfillment of these records did not occur for 11 MONTHS!!!!

I contacted the records personnel biweekly for status updates, but was always given various reasons for the delays in fulfillment, but most commonly told something like my records request is number 12 among 90 that they were working to fulfill. For most of that 11 months, that number didn't change.

When incomplete records were released (such as email replies not shared with the original email of an email thread) I was told that I would need to make additional records requests and start the process over again! This is clearly unacceptable, especially when it comes to a child's educational records.

I support any new rules that will make the delivery of records requested faster and which would apply some sort of enforcement mechanisms on agencies that obfuscate the process. 

On behalf of the Washington State Department of Commerce, I am writing to provide comments on the proposed Public Records Act (PRA) Model Rules, specifically the provisions to:

• “Triage requests into simple and complex tracks to ensure that processing times are proportionate to the difficulty of each request,” and

• “Provide records with the initial five-day response where the request is for a single, specific, identifiable record.”

The Department of Commerce’s Public Disclosure Unit currently consists of three full-time employees managing approximately 150 open requests at any given time. Our agency encompasses more than 400 distinct programs, each responsible for maintaining its own records. Given this structure, the proposed rule changes would significantly impact our ability to process requests efficiently and equitably. We are also concerned that the rules do not clearly define what constitutes responding “timely” or “promptly,” which could introduce additional ambiguity and create inconsistent expectations for both agencies and requesters.

While we already use an internal triage process to help manage workloads, the proposed requirement to formally classify requests as “simple” or “complex” would create additional administrative burdens. Determining whether a request is simple or complex is not always clear at the outset. A request that appears simple may turn out to involve multiple programs or extensive searches once processing begins. As written, the rule could inadvertently penalize agencies or requesters when initial classifications are inaccurate. Moreover, without clear definitions of timeliness standards, agencies may face increased scrutiny or differing interpretations about whether they complied with the proposed processing thresholds. We are significantly concerned that these ambiguities will lead to an increase in litigation for all Washington State agencies, exposing agencies to costly disputes over compliance and interpretation.

Additionally, the proposed requirement to provide records within the initial five-day response for single, specific, identifiable records is not feasible for an agency of our size and structure. The Department of Commerce must forward requests to record coordinators across multiple divisions, who then contact program staff to locate responsive records. Many programs maintain their own records independently, and staff availability varies. In practice, this decentralized process makes it nearly impossible to locate, review, and produce even a single record within five days while ensuring compliance with redaction and confidentiality requirements.

Finally, we are concerned that the proposed triage system could unintentionally create inequities among requesters. Prioritizing some requests as “simple” for faster processing may appear to favor certain individuals or topics over others, which could undermine the PRA’s principles of fairness and transparency. In addition, by introducing new subjective classifications and ambiguous standards of timeliness, the proposed provisions may significantly increase litigation risk for all state agencies, including ours.

We respectfully request that the Attorney General’s Office consider revising these provisions to provide more flexibility for agencies with decentralized record structures and limited staffing. Allowing agencies discretion to determine reasonable response timelines based on complexity and resource availability would better align with the PRA’s intent while maintaining equitable treatment for all requesters.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Model Rules. We appreciate your consideration and remain committed to transparency and public access to government records.

Mr. Attorney General Brown -

The Washington State Association of Broadcasters supports your office's proposed revisions to the Model Rules of the state's Public Records Act, specifically to ensure that government agencies deliver public records promptly in response to requests by the media and citizens of the state of Washington. 

Thank you -

In regard to your request for public comment about the proposed model rules for Washington’s Public Records Act, these are among my concerns:

Agencies must respect and supply prompt access to records. The law says they must reply in five business days, but too often the practice is to send an acknowledgement and promise eventual delivery. That may meet the legal requirement, but it’s routine these days; if that record is uncomplicated and readily available, they should send it.

Please encourage agencies to be proactive – the technology that creates some challenges for record-keeping also offers solutions. They should record meetings, post those recordings, and proactively post records whenever feasible. The access should also be clear and organized (as your model rules suggest).

Too often third-party notification can be a stalling technique; I have experienced this as faculty at a public university. Just because my name is in a record doesn’t mean I have a right to protest its release; notifying me (and colleagues) may cause unnecessary delay. Your proposal also seems to address this; it should also be part of the PRA training to agencies.

On the same line, requiring agencies to “have a reasonable belief that” records are “arguably exempt from disclosure” is logical. The practice of third-party notification has too often become a tactic for governments that don’t want to release information to delay or contravene their responsibilities for responding to requests.

Please require agencies to take electronic payments. Requiring a check is silly in 2025.

Please deal with the issue of “transitory” records – just because an agency lets legitimate public records that are digital expire (now) doesn’t make them transitory; they must fit the legal definitions, not just be inconvenient to keep.

And yes, I’m deliberately sending this from my WWU email. I don’t mind being on the record for transparency. I’m proud of Washington’s early leadership in its PRA and OPMA and I want to see that kind of access endure.

Thank you for your consideration. 

Dear Attorney General Brown,

I’m writing in support of the news media petition to update the Model Rules guiding implementation of the Public Records Act.

As a longtime journalist and open-government advocate, I’ve seen firsthand how the current system falls short of what voters intended when they said public records should be released “promptly.” It’s troubling that, according to data reported by agencies to the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee, average wait times for public records have increased by 60% between 2019 and 2024.

The rule changes your office has proposed represent an important and necessary step toward restoring the promise of transparency that voters expected—and that a healthy democracy requires. In a time when trust in government is at a low point, strengthening access to public information is one of the clearest ways to rebuild that trust.

I urge you to adopt these revisions and affirm your office’s commitment to open, accountable, and transparent government in Washington State.

Dear Attorney General Brown,

I heartily support the news media petition to modify Model Rules for implementation of the Public Records Act.

The state of Washington needs to lead the nation in this regard, and we don’t. Far from it.

Prior to retirement, I was an investigative reporter at the Seattle Times and Seattle Post-Intelligencer. I also worked nationally.

In those roles, I have witnessed a relentless erosion of the public’s right to obtain inside information about the workings of their governments. One of the most insidious erosions has been the delay. To delay a request is to deny it. I have received documents as tardily as one to two years after a request was made. That is an abuse of office. It is high time that official agencies in the state of Washington honor the law as it was intended.

I empathize with the burden of public disclosure requests. I have spoken to people who must deal with them. But if we are to have an open democracy it must be responsive to citizen and news media requests.

Moreover, if government agencies respond more quickly to well-crafted requests, where the requester has been specific, you will encourage that behavior.

Dear Attorney General Brown, 

As a long-time journalist and champion of open government, I strongly support the Attorney General’s proposed improvements to the Model Rules for the Public Records Act.

These changes, many of which were proposed in the media petition earlier this year, are sorely needed to stem the erosion of government transparency.

I am particularly encouraged by the emphasis on the prompt and timely response to public records requests. Growing delays are a  significant hindrance to ordinary citizens and journalists trying to respond to local and state government actions in a meaningful time frame.

As a Washington Coalition for Open Government board member, I am also hopeful the final Model Rules will include requiring agencies and local governments to offer electronic payments for records as a first option; prohibit auto-deletions of public records; and require strict guidelines and restrictions on the maintaining of public records produced on private cellphones and other devices.  

I applaud Attorney General Brown’s leadership in developing the revised Model Rules and commitment to transparent government that benefits all of Washington’s citizens. 

For five years, I was a consumer reporter for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. A critical factor in my ability to do my job was the fact that complaints made to the Attorney General's consumer affairs division were public. I was able to report several important stories by discovering, through examining those complaints, that a complaint I had received directly was not a one-off, but rather part of a pattern.

Discovering patterns in public records is critical to effective consumer and government reporting.

Allowing government agencies to wait months before providing public records to reporters undermines effective reporting and betrays the democratic principle that government is there to serve the People.

That is why I am writing in support of the news media petition to modify Model Rules for implementation of the Public Records Act. 

Dear Attorney General Brown:

On behalf of the Kentucky Open Government Coalition, I write in support of Washington’s Model Rules for the Public Records Act.

There is an important adage underlying all access to public records laws. That adage is, “The value of information is partly a function of time.” The clearer the statutory directive declaring the importance of timely access to public records, the greater the value of the laws to the public. Statutes aimed at achieving that goal, and enhancing agency compliance, redound to the benefit of the public — the intended beneficiaries of the law.

The Kentucky Open Government Coalition urges you to support the proposed Model Rules.

Thank you for your efforts to improve the Public Records Act. I support the proposed Model Rules and would like to provide some national context and further ideas for consideration, at least for future iterations. I am also happy to provide further research and observations if you wish.

My roots are in Washington state, where I grew up (in Naches and Ferndale), graduated from Western Washington University and earned my master’s and doctorate at Washington State University. I still recall fondly the great Pacific Northwest. Currently, I serve as director of the Brechner Freedom of Information Project at the University of Florida, which has provided research and education in government transparency since 1977.

Based on my research, I am proud to say that Washington state has been a leader in government transparency, at least until recent years. The trajectory is toward secrecy, and much needed changes can avert a dismantling of accountability and democracy in the state, if public officials are committed to the voters’ wishes in the 1972 passage of Initiative 276. Here are some facts that might be of interest (transparency rankings sheet attached):

• On a good note, compliance with public record laws by Washington government agencies is one of the nation’s best, ranking first at 65% as of 2019. It has dropped, however, to third with 50% compliance today, which is disconcerting.
• More troubling, Washington ranks 45^th in the country on the length of time it takes for requesters to receive their records – an average of 132 days, by one measure.
• As well, the state ranks 44^th in the country for affordability, where almost 1 out of 5 requests come with stiff copy fees.

That does not serve average Washingtonians well, who are already at a disadvantage in dealing with a legalistic, intimidating system. A “document divide” is forming, where the educated and affluent use record laws to maintain status, leaving the rest behind. The state law is strong in its attorney fee-shifting provision and penalties, but it is weak in timeliness and copy fees. The simple/complex track concept is good, and I think will help requesters and agencies. Other proposals to enforce timeliness also are worthy.

In addition, for future consideration, I would recommend creation of an independent enforcement agency that can help average people access records, as well as aid government agencies, particularly small towns and school districts. The Connecticut FOI Commission, for example, has helped enforce its public records law for 50 years, easing burden on the courts and aiding agencies in dealing with unduly burdensome requests. Similarly, in Ohio, a “FOI court” settles disputes for a $25 fee, also freeing up the courts, easing agency expenses, and aiding requesters. A win-win for government and the people.

I would be happy to provide further research and thoughts on what measures could improve the PRA – to benefit both requesters and agencies. The Model Law changes that you propose are a good start.

Dear Attorney General Brown:

I am writing to express my strong support for continued improvements to Washington’s Model Rules governing the administration of the Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56 RCW.

The PRA is a cornerstone of open government, and the Model Rules play a vital role in ensuring that all public agencies apply the law consistently, transparently, and in a manner that promotes public trust.

As public expectations evolve and agencies face new challenges—including electronic records management, increasing request volumes, and the complexities of digital communication—it is critically important that the Model Rules remain current, clear, and practical. Well-structured rules not only assist agencies in meeting their statutory obligations, but they also help requesters understand their rights and what they can expect from the public records process.

I respectfully support enhancements that:

1. Strengthen guidance on electronic records, including retention, search practices, metadata, and the proper handling of text messages and other informal communications used for public business.
2. Promote timely and consistent responses by providing agencies with clear standards for acknowledgements, installment production, and communication with requesters.
3. Improve clarity around exemptions so both agencies and requesters understand how exemptions should be applied, how redactions should be documented, and how exemption logs can be made more transparent.
4. Encourage modern records-management practices, including the adoption of systems that reduce search burdens, minimize risk, and allow agencies to respond efficiently without compromising the public’s right to know.
5. Protect requesters’ rights by ensuring the process remains accessible, non-discriminatory, and free of unnecessary barriers or costs.

Strengthening the Model Rules will help ensure that the Public Records Act continues to function as intended—providing broad access to the public while supporting agencies with usable, real-world guidance. I appreciate the Attorney General’s commitment to transparency and thank you for the opportunity to provide input.

I am transmitting this on behalf of the Society of Environmental Journalists, of which I am a member. Contact information for the chair of SEJ's Freedom of Information Task Force is under his signature. I'm pasting SEJ's statement below and attaching a PDF file.

Dear Attorney General Nick Brown:

The Society of Environmental Journalists (sej.org) supports the rule-making petition by the news media to improve Washington’s Model Rules for implementation of the Public Records Act. It urges the Attorney General’s Office to adopt the rules as it has proposed.

The Society of Environmental Journalists is a journalism organization of about 1,400 members, some in Washington State. SEJ is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization whose mission is to strengthen the quality, reach and viability of journalism that advances public understanding of environmental issues. SEJ’s Freedom of Information Task Force monitors records access and other right-to-know issues and speaks out on actions that limit access to information and inhibit journalists’ ability to cover the environment and related topics.

Washington’s Public Records Act requires “prompt” release of requested records, which is particularly important for journalists who often are working under deadlines that may be dictated by ongoing or forthcoming events, such as an election or a regulatory proceeding. Delays affect more than deadlines; they also undermine timely public understanding of environmental decisions. Spelling out in the Model Rules what the statute already says would help achieve prompt release.

SEJ also supports the provisions in the proposed rules that would allow public records officers to distinguish between simple and complex requests, so that simple requests can be processed more expeditiously. SEJ further supports the proposed language encouraging release of a single, identifiable record within five days when practicable. Finally, we endorse the proposed revision requiring records officers to consider whether “time is of the essence,” which is frequently the case when journalists file public records requests.

SEJ would like to thank the Attorney General for taking these important steps to ensure that the Public Records Act functions as the voters intended, both for journalists and the public at large.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 2025 proposed Model Rules Chapter 44-14 WAC. Below are our comments and questions in bolded text.

WAC 44-14-010 Authority and Purpose

1. “RCW 42.56.070(1)…”

   Our response: What is the accepted definition of “promptly?”  Without it defined in rule, there could be many interpretations

WAC 44-14-020 Agency description—Contact information—Public records officer.

(3) “The public records officer will oversee compliance…”

Our response: “The most timely possible action on requests…” How does AGO define “promptly?” Without it defined in rule, there could be many interpretations

WAC 44-14-030 Availability of public records.

(3) “Organization of records.”

“If (name of agency) employees create or receive public records on personal devices or in personal accounts, such employees shall transfer or copy the records that are being retained to work devices or work accounts as soon as practicable.”

Our response: Please define a specific timeframe such as “you have 30 days to transfer the records…” or employees may leave the agency and say it wasn’t “practicable” to provide the records.

WAC 44-14-040 Processing of public records requests – General. 

1. Providing the most “timely possible action…”

   Our response: Requiring agencies to do this is problematic.  What is “sufficient” staff time? Is the one-day included in the five-days, or is it in addition to? That is unclear.

   What does a “single record” consist of? A “single record” could be multiple pages (up to hundreds). “Record” must be defined or at least limit the number of pages that agencies would have to provide within five days.

   How do you prove “practicable” --is that the same as “reasonable?”  Practicable – feasible and capable of being performed (Black’s Law Dictionary) versus “reasonable” – actions that are justifiable, fair, and appropriate given the circumstances.

2. Our response: No suggestions.

3. The public records officer or designee will evaluate the request according to the nature of the request, volume, and availability of requested records before providing the initial response. 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 practicable to produce the records in the time frame provided by the requestor.

   Our response: This proposed change would present significant challenges for our agency. Our investigations often remain open for an indeterminate period. We are concerned that if a request is received for records related to an ongoing investigation, we may only be able to release partial information until the investigation is finalized which in many instances could be several months, delaying the availability of complete records for release.

   Additionally, while our agency is actively working toward becoming fully electronic, we have not yet achieved that goal. We currently maintain thousands of boxes stored at the State Records Center. To comply with the proposed change, these records would need to be scanned, which would pose a substantial financial and operational burden. The department also lacks sufficient space to temporarily store records during the scanning process. As a result, the proposed revision to this section of the model rules could create significant financial strain on the department and negatively impact our ability to meet processing timelines—potentially increasing the risk of litigation and associated costs.

   We are also concerned about how response times would be managed if, because of this rule change, requesters begin asserting that their requests are of an urgent nature and must be fulfilled within five days. What criteria or supporting information would requesters be required to provide to justify that “time is of the essence” for the production of records?

   Overall, this change appears to shift a disproportionate amount of control to the requester, which could lead to an increase in appeals and litigation if records are not produced within the timeframe specified by the requester.

4. “Acknowledging receipt of request.”

   Our response: No suggestions/changes.

5. “Consequences of failure to respond.”

   Our response: No suggestions/changes.

6. Third party notice and preventing irreparable harm. In the event that the requested records contain information the disclosure of which may substantially and irreparably damage any person or vital governmental function, the public records officer may, prior to providing the records, give notice to a person named in such records or to whom the records specifically pertain. Before sending a notice, an agency should have a reasonable belief that the records are arguably exempt from disclosure. Such notice should be given so as to make it possible for the requestor to revise the request, or, if necessary, allow the affected person to seek an order from a court to prevent or limit the disclosure. The notice to the affected person will include a copy of the request and inform them that the disclosure will occur on a date certain, generally within 10 business days of the notice, unless an injunction is obtained under RCW 42.56.540.

   Our response:  This appears to add a new required notice to the requester to allow them to revise their request. Would we do this first and then send third party notice if needed? What is the timeframe for this notification? Is this required? If the requester disagrees with this part, could they turnaround and sue us for delay? How do we know it’s going to cause “irreparable harm” one way or another? This rule also seems to contradict the Governor’s EO 25-10, forcing an agency to disclose records relevant to Tribal rights/lands without the consultation process required. It seems to prioritize speed over maintaining partnerships with the Tribes.

7. “Records exempt from disclosure.”

   Our response: No suggestions.

8. “Inspection of records.”

   (a) Our response: No changes.

   (b) The requestor must claim or review the assembled records within 30 days of the (name of agency's) notification that the records are available for inspection or copying, unless another time frame is agreed upon by the agency and the requestor. The agency will notify the requestor in writing of this requirement and inform the requestor to contact the agency to make arrangements to claim or review the records. If the requestor or a representative of the requestor fails to claim or review the records within the specified time period or make other arrangements, the (name of agency) may close the request and refile the assembled records. Other public records requests can be processed ahead of a subsequent request by the same person for the same or almost identical records, which can be processed as a new request. The requestor may make a subsequent request for the same or almost identical records, which may be processed by the agency as a new request. In evaluating the time to process the new request, the agency will consider how recently the prior request was closed and the number of records from the prior request remaining to be processed.

   Our response:30 days is too long. This complicates it more and makes requester and agency do a lot more work. How do agencies know if requestors need extra time if they don’t notify us ahead of time? Why not just say that we can’t close a request for failure to claim?

   Would rather have (8)(b) say, “The requester must schedule the inspection within 10 days of notification that the records are ready for inspection and if they fail to appear or do not reschedule within 24 hours prior to appointment time then we notify requester and close the request.”

(9) “Providing copies of records.”

Our response: No suggestions/changes.

(10) 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. If, within ((thirty)) 30 days, the requestor fails to inspect the entire set of records or one or more of the installments, the public records officer or designee may stop searching for the remaining records and close the request. 

Our response: We recommend 10 days.

(11) “Completion of Inspection.”

Our response: No change/suggestions.

(12) Closing a request. A records request will be closed when a requestor has inspected all the requested records, or copies of all responsive records have been provided, or a web link has been provided, or there are no records responsive to the request. A records request will also be closed when the requestor either withdraws the request, or fails to clarify an entirely unclear request, or fails to provide information legally required to obtain the records, or fails to fulfill his or her obligations to inspect the records, pay the deposit, pay the required fees for an installment, or make final payment for the requested copies. The (name of the agency) will provide the requestor a written communication stating the reason the request is closed, the date on which the request is closed, the fact that the agency will not further address the request, the date from which the one-year statute of limitations to seek judicial review begins to run, and the requestor may ask follow-up questions within a reasonable time frame. In those circumstances where the (name of agency) is asking the requestor to take an action, it may provide this written communication either at the time it requests action from the requestor by explaining the consequences of failing to take action, or after the requestor has failed to take the requested action, or both.

Our response: We would like to fully staff our public disclosure office; however, the primary challenge remains funding. Where can our agency—and others in similar circumstances—obtain the resources needed to support these critical positions? If agencies were permitted to charge requesters for staff time and for the costs associated with producing records, regardless of record type, we could more effectively recoup expenses. This would allow us to adequately staff our public disclosure offices, prioritize requests, and release records more efficiently.

An additional concern, indirectly related to this rulemaking, involves the classification of public disclosure positions. We and our colleagues across the state have frequently discussed the inconsistencies in salaries, position classifications, and levels of responsibility for public disclosure roles. Retaining staff in these positions is increasingly difficult, as employees often move between agencies seeking better compensation.

If a specific administrative classification were established within the state HR system for public disclosure professionals—including Public Records Officers, Public Disclosure Coordinators, and Search Specialists—it could help standardize roles and compensation. This would likely improve recruitment and retention, enabling agencies to maintain sufficient staffing levels and respond to public records requests more promptly.

We understand these changes would be complex to implement, but we appreciate your time and consideration of these important issues.

Thank you for your consideration.

Dear Attorney General Nick Brown,

I urge you to adopt, as written, the proposed improvements to public records rules. Your staff was thoughtful and thorough in vetting the language proposed by the news media, and already addressed agency concerns prior to publication.

Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington joined in the media’s rulemaking petition in response to worsening disclosure delays. Reporters are too often stymied when trying to provide timely information needed for public participation in government. The proposed rules will make the disclosure system work better for everyone, while helping fulfill the promise of the voter-approved Public Records Act to maintain the people’s control of government. The proposed rules should be adopted without any weakening of transparency reforms.  

Dear Attorney General Brown,

I write in support of the news media petition to modify Model Rules for implementation of the Public Records Act. 

In my experience as a journalist and as an open-government advocate, I have witnessed first-hand how the current implementation of the PRA does not match the voters’ original vision that public records be released “promptly.” It’s particularly concerning that the wait time for public records increased 60% between 2019 and 2024, according to government agencies’ reporting to the Joint Legislative Auditing and Review Committee. 

The changes your office is proposing would be a great first step to ensure that the vision of the voters for transparent state and local governments is maintained, even in this era when trust of government among residents has dropped. This would be a positive step forward and your assurance to citizens that you as Attorney General stand for open and transparent government in our state. 

Please pass the rule revisions your office has proposed.

I am a Seattle resident and former public relations professional with FOIA experience. I saw there was a push to increase public records sharing speed and wanted to voice my support. Our public records should be shared quickly and freely, within reason.

Feel free to give me a call to discuss. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed amendments to the Model Public Records Act Rules.  We fully support the Public Records Act and below are a few questions that came up in our review as we were thinking through how to implement/operationalize these issues:

1. Section 44-14-040(1). This section recommends triaging requests into simple and complex tracks to ensure that processing times are proportionate to the difficulty of the request.  With a large volume of simple requests, would creating different tracks delay processing of the tracks that are complex?  Would it be possible to remove the reference to tracks and instead reference that processing times should be proportionate to the difficulty of the request?
2. Section 44-14-040(1). This section recommends that a request for a single, specific, identifiable record should be produced within five business days. Would compliance be possible if the single record is large and requires significant redaction (e.g., a single email with large attachments)?  Could there be an exception for large single records?
3. Section 44-14-040(3). This section recommends agencies consider whether the requester has identified a reason that time is of the essence and try to produce records in the time frame provided by the requester.  Many requesters express that their request is urgent.  Will criteria be created to help staff respond in a consistent way across teams and agencies to eliminate any sense of preferential treatment of some requestors? 

Section 44-14-040(6). This section recommends agencies should only provide third party notice in the event that records contain information that may substantially and irreparably harm any person or vital government function.  Have criteria been developed to help staff determine whether the disclosure of information may cause substantial and irreparable harm?

I apologize for typo but the sixth bullet point in today’s input should read “both committees” rather than agencies.

In addition, please read the following for context:

As a member of disability community and volunteer advocate for children with disabilities and others facing systemic injustices, I would also like to just add that my sincere hope is that the proposed amendments result in more, not less, prompt access for all people seeking public records including those in need of accommodations under the ADA or through regular agency or office practices.

Finally , I hope the relevance of concerns about archivist appraisal practices, conflicts of interest, and retention (and destruction) schedule dysfunction and inefficiencies within and between numerous agencies resulting in broad loss of public assets/resources documented in public records received and reviewed over the past few years is clear within context of the model rules, the AGO’s priorities to support efficient, transparent government, and development of task force to improve public access and prompt response by agencies. Because without proper management of the retention schedules as a crucial government function, and permission of systemic issues to continue unresolved and under the radar even when it comes to the SAO, access to records isn’t delayed—but impossible because records of historical or legal value to the public no longer exist and almost as troubling, the public has no idea of that either until years after revocations of records with prior archival designations including permanent-status retention or ever.

Respectfully,

Julie

Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment.

I am a resident of Washington State, a former teacher, writer and journalist, and parent to two daughters including our youngest with six disabilities.

I would first like to extend my support for the recommendations and approval of the proposed amendments to the model rules as communicated by the Washington Coalition for Open Government. In respect to the AGO's proposed edits, I applaud all of them and especially appreciate those that help ensure that agencies don't simply deny records in full or in part, but provide brief explanations with statutory basis for same (I have many experiences and examples of this not occurring, and agencies simply claiming blanket exemptions with a general statement and no effort to explain even briefly how the exemption could apply to the specific redaction. It is common for agencies to redact text with such broad claims even when the statutes do not support that claim (ie., anytime attorneys are cc'd, if/when purpose of email not to seek/receive legal advice for upcoming legal proceeding, when outside participants also receive a "privileged" message, etc.). I would also encourage the AGO to make sure it trains its own staff, as the AGO in the past year acknowledged that it improperly redacted two different records and only corrected the issue after those redactions were challenged—raising concerns about how AGO is walking the walk within its own PRO office, in addition to its outward-facing duties and responsibilities to the public and agencies.

In addition, I would like to highlight some main issues and concerns and urge the AGO to consider how to address these to improve the experience of members of the public seeking access to records who are likewise impacted by the state of records management and provision/receipt processes within and between agencies. I only became aware of the scope and depth of some of these systemic issues and concerns (admitted by agencies as long-standing and in need of improvement per internal emails in some cases) through public record requests, and even as I write this, I am encountering barriers to access and the right to inspect records of public import based on disability that aren't isolated. I would urge the AGO to consider how the below issues and concerns could be addressed whether through model rules language or the newly formed task force.

• Recommend that agencies halt the practice of restricting payment for invoices largely under $1 (in some cases, 5 cents) by check or in-person only and not allow requestors to consolidate payments. This practice represents an unreasonable barrier that is a burden for anyone, including agency employees, but disproportionately impacts people with disabilities or other people facing systemic challenges such as poverty or immigration status in our community, as well as younger people who may not have a checking account or use checks. Logistical headaches for the requestors and agencies have soared since OSPI established its fee payment practice earlier this year, and I cannot understand how requiring check payments for invoices of 5 cents can be time- or cost-effective. Instead the practice may be contributing to delays in producing installments and more request backlogs. Morgan Damerow, ombudsman with the AGO, shared that it is often less costly and logistically time-consuming (summarizing his input) for agencies to not require payment or require payment for invoices only over $1, which would have helped with the current OSPI matter (attached).
• Related to above, recommend that agencies stop falsely claiming that requestors "abandoned" requests if the requestor has communicated with the agency that this is not the case after receiving notice that the request was closed or in situations where the agency was proactively made aware or agreed that the requestor could have more time to consolidate/send payment. Such claims are false and misleading.
• Recommend that agencies either have flexible deadlines if/when requestors notify the agency that more time is needed to consolidate/send payment for installments, or permit extensions for at least two months (not 30 days as is currently the case for OSPI and possibly other agencies). At times, OSPI has taken almost 2 weeks to notify me that the check was received and it was processed—it is stressful to wait to hear back after a check was sent without any knowledge if/when it was received, or if it will need to be resent. If it does need to be resent after two weeks of waiting to hear back, there is a risk the request could be closed depending on the agency's policy.
• Recommend that agencies do not close requests if/when requestors indicate they need more time. Providing an online payment option could help to address this ongoing issue with some agencies too.
• Public records suggest deference to agencies and bias may be impacting some SOS/Archivists and their decisions about inherent value of records in certain contexts, with decisions about which records have value and which do not being decided in ways that do not align with the SOS' official policies and procedures (for example, decided according to what agencies tell OSPI in respect to value of records TO AGENCIES, not to public that owns those records). In  addition, substantiating public records document incidents of one or two archivists making decisions without transparency about archival designation such as revoking archival-permanent retention status of a records series (and then folding it into the case file and "disappearing" it that is crucial to helping parents of children with disabilities effectively advocate for their needs in school settings statewide without having ever formally appraised that series first or documented a formal appraisal in the record, then appearing to collaborate with OSPI to retroactively purge those once-archival records. I have also reviewed public records suggesting that SOS/Archivists provided false and misleading information to members of the public and journalists retaining to retention (AND DESTRUCTION) schedule revision processes. The SOS/Archivists and SAO are aware that simple edits to one sentence in all retention schedules for all agencies in the state could fix the loophole to stop allowing and even encouraging agencies to revoke archival retention of records without transparency to the public and then retroactively destroy the series including records previously deemed archival-permanent retention or archival including any records the agency neglected, in violation of its own prior schedules, to send to the State Archives for preservation for the public. This is the collective action that at the time and even for years after the public had no awareness of, including people with disabilities and parents of disabled children directly impacted, that OSPI, SOS, and SRC took that contributed to the Seattle Times article linked below. I have also seen records that appear to show archival decisions directed by staff who are not trained as archivists and are not working with that background or context, such as communication or legislative directors.
• The State Records Committee and Local Records Committee have a long-established and unresolved conflicts of interest problem in the form of Al Rose, longtime chair of both agencies and Chief Legal Counsel for the SAO. Public records show that Rose has been instrumental in the background when it comes to refusing to audit this area of government (systemic records management and dysfunction issues and procedural violations within and between state and local agencies resulting in destruction of public assets without transparency). It is a conflict of interest when the person with power to agree or disagree with audits is at the same time serving as the chair of a committee that approves and implements retention (AND DESTRUCTION) schedules that in some cases have resulted in approvals of archival revocations based on false information or without proper procedures first being followed.
• Strengthen the 530 review request process. Recommend that if the 530 review request involves challenged redactions by the AGO, that AGO assign a third-party to conduct the review instead. The AGO should also administer conflicts of interest checks prior to assigning staff to conduct the reviews, and should consider if and how conflicts exist when the AGO is tasked with reviewing actions taken by its own clients by the AGO's ultimate client—the PEOPLE.
• Create a manual to help the public know their rights if/when records are denied, including general resources and guidance about how to file a civil suit and if it is permissible for non-lawyers to file one, as well as any other options other than a civil suit that can be explored to address issues and access withheld records. Offer public input sessions for the team once it is established for transparency and to focus efforts.
• Indefinite withholding of records over years by agencies, with in some cases records withheld to disrupt or prevent fair administration of justice (ie., when records are produced only after exhibits deadline or witness testimony). There does not seem to be timely accountability to address this type of PRA violation that also overlaps with other legal violations as the PRA violations also impact judicial or quasi-judicial hearings and fair administration of justice. For example, the Seattle School District has withheld records for years by trickling out installments of only a few dozen pages comprised of mostly unresponsive or already sent records, or even records that aren't responsive at all. Meanwhile, our child who is the subject of some of those records and due process proceedings filed due to violation of her civil rights is nearing high school graduation. Do expectations and trainings for agencies/public cover this? I sincerely hope that by adding the word "promptly" to the model rules, this will send the message to agencies that withholding records for years, including timing productions to occur so the withholding impacts legal cases and judge ruling, is inappropriate and cannot be tolerated.
• Require that agencies provide a publicly available index of all communication modes and repositories that it uses to send and keep records, so that requestors have that knowledge when making records. Trainings and expectations should make clear that when "all records" are requested, records must not be limited to emails only or only certain types of communication modes and not others, if others exist.
• If agency staff are found to have lied on declarations claiming that they did/do not possess pubic records on private devices when that is later proven false, there should be substantive and transparent consequences to ensure that requestor is aware that records have been withheld or delayed as a result of false statements sent back to the PRO after individuals were asked for records on private devices.

As always, I would be happy to speak with the AGO further to answer any questions or provide more information about the above concerns. As referenced above, many of these issues and concerns pertaining to the Secretary of State (archivists and other staff members at the highest levels), the State Auditor, OSPI, and local agencies such as the Seattle School District are well-documented and cited in public records, but for brevity I did not think it prudent to attach such records here and instead assure the reader of this input that abundant documentation exists through public records shining a light on agency-wide concerns and issues addressed.

Dear Attorney General Nick Brown:

As a longtime member and past president of The Society of Environmental Journalists (sej.org) and as a journalism professional who’s worked extensively with Washington state journalists, I support the rule-making petition to improve Washington’s Model Rules for implementation of the Public Records Act. 

Hello, my name is Kristen Deskin, I am the Human Resources Manager for King County Directors’ Association and also serve as KCDA’s public records officer. We are a purchasing co-op owned by 294 Washington State school districts and utilized by 1,034 Washington State public agencies. While we agree that public records laws need to be tightened, we are very weary to the additional costs which small governmental agencies will be forced to endure. Requiring increased response times and/or robust records management systems comes with a cost, either in the form of incremental staffing or expensive data systems, which increases the cost of providing our products and services to schools and government agencies. Every governmental agency that we work with does their due diligence and makes their best effort to comply with current law, no one is trying to avoid transparency.

Thank you for your time and consideration on these matters. I hope we can find a middle ground, which allows for governmental transparency without overly burdening the people who are doing the work or hindering community members who are actually seeking records for a purpose other than personal profit at the expense of taxpayers

To whom it many concern,

On behalf of Mukilteo School District’s Public Records Officer Patty Dowd, I submit her comments as follows regarding the proposed PRA Model rules:

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed changes to the model rules for the Public Records Act, Chapter 44-14 WAC on behalf of the Mukilteo School District as an employee who is responsible for responding to public records requests on a regular basis. My overall feedback is that these changes to the model rules would set unrealistic expectations for smaller public agencies, such as our school district, when it comes to responding to public records requests and would create an undue burden for us and other similarly situated public agencies. I will address the proposed changes to each WAC provision with which I have concerns.

WAC 44-14-020. The proposed amendment to provide the “most timely possible action on requests” assumes that responding to public records requests is the paramount duty of any public agency. While the Mukilteo School District and other school districts do make it an extremely high priority to respond to requests for records in the most-timely fashion we are able, our highest priority is to ensure the most effective operation of our district to ensure that we are able to educate our students to the best of our abilities. An alternative wording to this provision may be to add the word “reasonably” to emphasize to requesters that, as a public agency, we have other duties to the public aside from responding to records requests.

WAC 44-14-040(1). It is unrealistic to expect public agencies such as ours to complete responses to requests for a record in five business days. We do not have the budget to have an employee whose sole task is responding to records requests. Even if we did have the resources to have an individual who was one hundred precent dedicated to responding to requests, many records are quite lengthy and require a detailed analysis to determine if there is any exempt information in the record that must be redacted. This analysis often requires consulting with legal counsel and, should redactions be necessary, creating an exemption log to explain necessary redactions. Further, while agencies such as ours do prioritize smaller requests over the completion of larger requests, smaller requests are not necessarily less complex when it comes to this analysis. We certainly do strive to devote sufficient staff time to ensure prompt responses, however, the volume of requests can vary from month to month and year to year, and it is not possible to have sufficient staff who are trained experts in responding to requests to ensure there are never backlogs in responding to requests.

WAC 44-14-040(3). Expecting agency staff to evaluate whether “time is of the essence” in responding to a request sets up all individuals tasked with responding to requests for failure, as it is an entirely subjective and ambiguous standard. Nearly every individual who submits a request believes that time is of the essence for their particular request. This subjective standard proposed in the changes to the model rules would be quite difficult, if not impossible, for public records officers to evaluate. Further, there are already other laws and regulations allowing records to be shared in cases of urgent health and safety issues outside of the scope of the Public Records Act.

WAC 44-14-040(4). Expecting an agency such as ours to provide a specific explanation for each record fully denied creates an undue burden when responding to requests. For example, if a requester asked for all records regarding a particular student, which are all categorically exempt from production pursuant to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, this change would require potentially thousands of individual explanations for a class of records that are squarely exempt from production.

WAC 44-14-040(6). It is also unrealistic to expect agencies such as ours to determine if an individual would be “substantially and irreparably” damaged if a record was disclosed when evaluating whether third-party notification should be provided. The “right to privacy” (RCW 42.56.050) is not clearly defined in the Public Records Act, and is necessarily determined by case law. Restricting the ability of individuals to be notified that records related to them will be disclosed using this standard would limit the ability of individuals to seek judicial review of this standard and would inevitably lead to the privacy of individuals being violated. Additionally, requiring agencies to contract requestors before providing such a notice may, in itself, violate the privacy of individuals depending on the nature of the records that are requested.

WAC 44-14-040(8). Requiring the time-period for inspection of records to be “an agreed period” is not a workable standard for public agencies. The agency and requestor may not reach agreement on this period, creating an untenable situation.

Thank you for considering my comments on the proposed amendments to the model rules for the Public Records Act. I hope that you understand the additional burdens and difficulties that these amendments would impose on smaller public agencies such as ours.

Attached is my one-pager comments on Public Records Act model rules with an hour to spare. I'm sure Washington Coalition for Open Government's comments will be most enlightening, and I also recommend listening to the Public Records Officer Podcast on this critical topic.

On page 7 of the comments we submitted by email last month we described rulemakings In which state agencies' proposals follow the incorrect advice in WAC 44-14-03003 that records retention schedules may be used as the indexes required by RCW 42.56.070(5).

We have recently become aware of an apparent additional such rulemaking. The agency's Preproposal Statement of Inquiry refers to RCW 42.56.070(5) and states that the proposed rule amendments include "establishing the state government general records retention schedule and community and technical colleges records retention schedule for records indexing."

Dear Attorney General Nick Brown,

I’m writing to you to support the news media petition to modify the Model Rules for Implementation of the state Public Records Act. As a reporter in Washington state who has also worked in ‘the other Washington’ doing national stories, I’ve depended upon access to government records through the state’s public records requests program (as well as the Freedom of Information Act). Such tools are indispensable for primary research without which good journalism isn’t possible.

In the past, I’ve written to the state legislature opposing efforts to weaken the all-important state Public Records Act. As a journalist, I saw firsthand how delays in access to public records has been damaging, with wait times increasing especially between 2019 and 2024 (according to state reports of the Joint Legislative Auditing and Review Committee). So I testified on this matter last year before a legislative committee.

While openness in government records is vital to all citizens in a democracy, it’s particularly important for journalists For a book on global warming, for example, The Greenhouse Trap, it was necessary for me and my co-authors to have access to the records of U.S. government agencies when it came to regulating climate pollution. For a series of local stories and national stories on nonprofit charities and for-profit thrift stores, here in Washington state and in other states, also, it was vital to have records on public complaints against companies and on the communications among regulatory bodies. I was fortunate to get that access.

Today, I’m here to applaud the changes your office is proposing as being a very good step toward insuring transparency both for journalists and citizens from all walks of life. Thank you for your efforts as Attorney General in acting to uphold open and transparent government in our state.

Please pass the rule changes your office has offered.

I would like to voice my support for the new PRA model rules.

As a public citizen, I have very little power to hold my elected officials accountable.  Through the PRA, I have been able to uncover records that have lead to PDC violations, OPMA violations, and other items of public interest.  Without the PRA, these would have never been known to me or the public.

However, lately my PRA requests have been taking months to complete, even for requests as simple as a single email directly referenced by a public official.  These delays make it difficult to hold public agencies accountable, giving them an opportunity to avoid oversight by understaffed public records offices.

Furthermore, it is not for the agencies to determine what level of burden is appropriate.  The PRA was, ultimately, enacted by the people who fund the public agencies, and the people have determined that records should be open to the public.  Any attempt to delay or refuse records is a direct rebuke of the people.

I appreciate your willingness to address this problem, and hope that you continue to support transparency and accountability.

Thank you for proposing changes to make Washington state government more transparent for residents of the state.

As a former editor of The Seattle Times and now as the director of an investigative journalism program that relies on public records across the U.S. to produce national projects, I know first-hand how vitally important public records laws are in helping to keep state and local governments accountable.

I also have seen how governments have successfully used delays to thwart the clear intention of laws designed to increase transparency for voters and residents of Washington and other states.

I applaud your efforts to begin to address this and strongly support the news media petition to modify the model rules for implementation of the Public Records Act.

Thank you for your consideration.