Sound Politics: Public non-disclosure

July 05, 2007

Public non-disclosure

The importance of access to public records to lawful government dates back to this complaint against George III mentioned in the Declaration of Independence:

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

Sadly ironic that a week before Independence Day a Thurston County judge allowed state government to flout the Public Records Act and withhold records from disclosure. A requestor asked for a Department of Corrections electronic database and Judge Christine Pomeroy ruled that the DOC's production of paper printouts of the database records was an acceptable response:

"There is no clear right to electronic copies under the Public Disclosure Act," Superior Court Judge Christine Pomeroy said in her oral ruling

Judge Pomeroy's ruling is ridiculous. A print-out is not the same record as the electronic original. If Pomeroy believes that it is then she and her clerks should banned from using Lexis-Nexis and other computer tools and be forced to perform all of their legal research using only books and paper. The state Attorney General's new Model Rules for best practices on disclosure of electronic records make clear that agencies should provide original electronic records when so requested. I have more arguments why paper printouts are an inadequate response to a request for electronic records, here.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 05, 2007 04:56 PM | Email This

Comments

1. Stefan, you need to get Rob McKenna to explain himself on this one. His office appears to be talking out of both sides of his mouth on the public records/electronic format issue.

McKenna formulates model rules for electronic disclosure of records. Then, when someone asks a state agency for electronic copies of records, McKenna goes to court and says the requester has to pay a fortune for paper copies, and isn't entitled to electronic copies.

Maybe McKenna's office should also be "banned from using Lexis-Nexis and other computer tools and be forced to perform all of their legal research using only books and paper"?

Posted by: Richard Pope on July 5, 2007 05:23 PM

2. Gran gran Dad understood this all too well. George II of the Bush line is similarly indictable for his ignorance of the rights of man.

So, does this make modern Republicans the Tories of today?

WWJD

Posted by: Thomas H Jefferson on July 5, 2007 08:44 PM

3. No, since the topic is public disclosure and records requests, it makes you the troll of hte day...

Posted by: jopalm on July 5, 2007 11:27 PM

4. The original Thomas Jefferson had no middle name so the above poster put one in. The "H" stands for Halfwit.

Posted by: John425 on July 6, 2007 11:43 AM

5. How could this judge, an individual smart enough to have graduated from law school, render (in good faith) such an abysmally, jaw-droppingly stupid judgment?

Posted by: ewaggin on July 6, 2007 11:52 AM

6. Richard,

Good point on McKenna. Don't expect him to support the release of documents that expose corruption by state officials and don't expect the state supreme court to permit it either.

Posted by: Don on July 6, 2007 02:28 PM

7. There's not much point in blaming Rob McKenna. His office is just representing a client, the Deparment of Corrections, which is an executive department. The gov could stop this sort of dumb argument as easily, at least, as the attorney general. The real error here was by the judge, who accepted an argument that neither the department or its lawyer really believed.

Posted by: Steve on July 6, 2007 03:52 PM

8. Steve,

McKenna's oath of office is to uphold and defend the constitution and laws of the state of Washington. It is not to defend what public officials want him to defend. He works for the people, although that fact seems to escape him.

Posted by: Don on July 6, 2007 09:36 PM