Another quiet year for open government legislation

Despite, or perhaps because of, the laments of the news media and the Washington Coalition for Open Government about the state of open government in Washington, legislators took little action this session to change the Public Records Act (PRA) or Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA).

It had appeared that the Legislature might act on changes to the so-called Sunshine Committee that has been tasked with the thankless job of reviewing the numerous exemptions to the PRA to ensure that they are still relevant. Frustrated committee members suggested even disbanding the effort, but the Legislature didn’t consider that option, and in the end made no changes to the group’s charter. So there will inevitably be more handwringing over the committee’s fate during this legislative interim.

The one bill of note that passed was HB 1105, regarding posting of public comment periods, initially introduced in 2023. The original version of the bill created concerns, but AWC worked with the sponsor to narrowly tailor the bill to get the intended effect without negative unintended consequences. As it passed, the bill requires a city or other agency to post the specific calendar dates for a public comment period when the amount of time is identified in statute. For example, if there is a statutory requirement to have public comment open for 30 days on a land use issue, then the notice would require the exact calendar date (e.g., April 30) when the public comment period ends, so the public is less likely to misunderstand when their window closes.

AWC also worked with Rep. Joe Schmick (R–Colfax) on a bill, HB 2307, to try to reduce the impact of vexatious public records litigation by creating a fast internal appeal process and giving judges more discretion over what they consider when making penalty decisions. But the bill failed to move out of committee due to overwhelming and unrelenting opposition from the news media and the Washington Coalition for Open Government. We do appreciate the many city officials who provided input on the proposal.

We hope to continue to collect the data that shows the negative impact vexatious litigation has on cities’ ability to respond to other requests. It is unfortunate when some individuals monopolize and abuse the PRA to the detriment of everyone else.