tool name

close
tool goes here

Public records law should cover judges

There’s just no polite way to put this: The state Supreme Court blew it.

Published: 10/22/09 12:05 am
0 comments

There’s just no polite way to put this: The state Supreme Court blew it.

In a 7-2 ruling last week, the court essentially decided that judicial administrative records are exempt from the state Public Records Act. The rationale: The courts aren’t “agencies” of government, or at least they’re not clearly defined as such in the act.

The case was City of Federal Way vs. Koenig, in which the city refused to release correspondence to and from embattled Municipal Court Judge Michael Morgan. In deciding against the records request, the Supreme Court is saying that the Municipal Court is not an agency of the City of Federal Way.

Tell that to the City Council, which in August decided that it made more sense to keep the Municipal Court under city control rather than contracting out its misdemeanor caseload to King County District Court. How can anyone look at that and not interpret the court as an agency of the city?

The PRA defines a “local agency” as a “county, city, town, municipal corporation, quasi-municipal corporation, or any special purpose district, or any office, department, division, bureau, board, commission or agency thereof, or other public agency.”

The magic word, “court,” is nowhere in there. And so the justices ruled that courts – which presumably includes their own – are exempt. Although court case records are public, the ruling means courts can refuse to release the kinds of e-mails and other documents that citizens and reporters need to keep judges accountable.

Two justices disagreed with the majority decision. In writing for the dissent, which was also signed by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, Justice Debra L. Stephens got it right: “I believe our branch of government is an ‘agency’ subject to the strictures of the PRA.” And, “In the end, I believe we do a disservice to interpret the PRA, a broad mandate for open government, to exempt entirely the judicial branch of government.”

The majority cited legislative inaction on modifying the PRA to specifically include court administrative records. That can be easily remedied, and should become a top priority for open government advocates in the 2010 session.

Similar stories:

  • Court considers rules on availability of court administrative records

  • New records rule to be reviewed for transparency

  • Judge should make privacy call

  • Governor’s privilege in hands of state court

  • Justice Alexander had a solid judicial-openness record

JOIN THE DISCUSSION | Register here

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service. If you have any questions, including why your comment may not be showing immediately after you submit it, be sure to visit the commenting FAQ.

The News Tribune had 72,010 visitors yesterday
South Sound Cars .com
VIEW ALL »

Presented By
Puyallup Nissan

2005 Kia Spectra EX
Clear White color, 110,469 miles
$6,995.00

South Sound Homes .com
VIEW ALL »

Homes By
Windermere Real Estate

ISLAND WATERFRONT!!
Great Opportunity to own a piece of heaven at a great price.

South Sound Rentals .com
VIEW ALL »

Castellan West Apartments

Welcome... to a new & friendly atmosphere!
Castellan West Apartments offer one and two bedroom apartment homes for pleasant and comfortable living. Effective apartment

TribBits
GridIron Hits 2011/12 - Football Picks
Local prizes sponsored by Korum Puyallup Nissan
Subscribe to The News Tribune
Click Here to Subscribe
GridIron Hits 2011/12 Subscribe to The News Tribune