Open-records office worth starting to talk about

Legislation that would create a new state open-records office is a good idea with bad timing.

Anything that comes with a price tag is likely to encounter resistance this session – even if it could end up saving money in the long run, which is the goal of those supporting House Bill 1044 and its companion bill in the Senate, SB 5237.

It’s a cruel fiscal fact that many programs that provide long-term financial benefits and help vulnerable populations likely will be cut to fill the state’s estimated $4.6 billion budget deficit.

But even if the open-records office legislation doesn’t pass this session, there’s no harm in starting to talk about a different way of handling records request disputes.

The open-records legislation was requested by state Attorney General Rob McKenna and state Auditor Brian Sonntag as a faster way to handle disputes over public records requests to state agencies. It would create an independent Office of Open Records that citizens could opt to appeal to rather than file an expensive and time-consuming lawsuit to obtain records denied by a state agency. Appeals would be settled within 30 days.

If the legislation passes, the office would have some startup costs; it’s expected to cost $54,000 the first year and $225,000 through June 2014 if it’s created in January 2012. But House sponsor Chris Hurst, D-Enumclaw, says eventually it will be a big money-saver for the state.

It might have an added benefit: Citizens now who don’t press open-records disputes in court because they can’t find a lawyer willing to take the case could opt for the administrative route. There would be a filing fee, which has not been determined yet.

Unfortunately, creation of the office probably wouldn’t have an effect on that small number of people who have turned open-records fights into a livelihood. They make outrageous requests, then sue when their requests are either rejected or not fulfilled to their liking. Agencies often settle out of court to avoid lengthy, costly litigation. If they go to court and lose, they can be slapped with hefty penalties. Since 2003, the state has paid $1.2 million in penalties – on top of defense costs.

The legislation creating the open-records office isn’t likely to pass this session. But when the state gets back on its feet financially, creating this kind of mechanism for handling records-request disputes more efficiently and cheaply would warrant lawmakers’ attention.