When Washington’s Public Records Act was passed with 72 percent of the vote in 1972, the law — and the premise behind it — was fairly simple.
“The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know,” the law reads. “The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created.”
Effective and responsive government depends upon transparency. Lawmakers are beholden to the public, bereft of special dispensation that allows them to keep secrets from citizens.
But that simplicity has been obfuscated. A recent opinion piece by Rep. Peter Abbarno, R-Centralia, for The (Tacoma) News Tribune notes that when the law was passed, 10 allowable exemptions were included; now, there are more than 500 exemptions, reflecting how lawmakers have gradually pulled a veil over government.
In the process, they have abandoned their duty to the people and have flirted with a line drawn by the state Supreme Court, which has made clear that exemptions must be rare. The results are a less-informed public, a more opaque government and authorities who believe they are the guardians of what is good for the people to know. It is a drip-drip-drip that can erode the sturdiest democracy.
Government transparency has been in the news lately, ranging from the highest court in the land to the state level.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has come under fire for revelations that he has accepted luxury vacations and other benefits from a conservative activist. Those benefits include lucrative real estate deals, and Thomas has failed to mention the largesse on required disclosure forms.
For those who reflexively regard these revelations as a partisan witch hunt against a conservative justice, we recommend that you honestly ask how you would feel about a liberal justice accepting trips with a progressive activist looking to influence the court.
And in Oregon, Secretary of State Shemia Fagan resigned this week after it was revealed she had a $10,000-a-month side job as a consultant for a marijuana business, an industry her office was tasked with auditing. For anybody inclined to defend Fagan on partisan grounds, the question becomes, “How would you feel if the secretary of state had a side job with, say, a gun manufacturer?”
Each of those cases was revealed by investigative work from a free press. (Kudos to ProPublica for its work on the Thomas story and Willamette Week in the Fagan case.) And they represent the need for diligence; corruption can be cultivated when shadows are allowed to exist.
This year, Washington lawmakers continued their persistent efforts to shield themselves from scrutiny. Some legislators, it was revealed, have taken to claiming “legislative privilege” to deny public records requests. No such exemption appears in law, and the move is being challenged in court.
Speaker Laurie Jinkins, D-Tacoma, has said the House will abide by the court’s decision. That is a case of doing the bare minimum to support the public’s right to know. It should not require a court ruling for lawmakers to understand that transparency is an essential part of their job — a job that depends on the trust and support of the people.
Legislators must embrace the spirit of open records laws as much as the letter. And the public and a free press must continue to remind lawmakers that they work for us and there are no shortcuts to open, responsive government.
