In considering a bill relating to government transparency, state lawmakers risk falling into the same trap that engulfed them last year.
Sen. Jaime Pedersen, D-Seattle, has introduced legislation that would keep the public in the dark regarding legislative deliberations and investigations into sexual and workplace harassment. In other words, it would provide the Legislature with exemptions to the state Public Records Act that are not available to officials in the governor’s office, at the city and county level, or on local school boards.
And so, at the risk of repeating ourselves, we offer a reminder to state lawmakers: You are not that special. Laws that have been in effect since being adopted by voters in 1972 and that apply to other elected officials should apply to legislators, as well.
That should be obvious by now, considering the disaster the Legislature brought on itself last year. After a court ruling that said lawmakers should adhere to the Public Records Act, they hammered through a bill to exempt themselves from large portions of the law, introducing and passing the legislation within a 48-hour period. Citizens were not pleased, and about 20,000 of them contacted the office of Gov. Jay Inslee, urging him to veto the bill — which he did.
That effort was bolstered by front-page editorials from 13 daily newspapers throughout the state, including The Columbian, and we stand by our belief that transparency is essential to effective governance. Public records belong to the public, and lawmakers should fight on behalf of the people who hire them and pay their salary, rather than bargaining in favor of secrecy.
All of that stamps a statement from Pedersen as particularly absurd. “The people of our state value both open government and effective government,” he said in support of Senate Bill 5784. “This bill attempts to strike a balance between those important principles.”
Pedersen is wrong on the premise and wrong on his approach. Open government is effective government. There is no balance to be struck, and lawmakers should strive for transparency.
Instead, the bill does not go far enough in forcing lawmakers to operate in the open. It adds exemptions that could be used to obscure who is attempting to influence legislators and how those legislators arrive at policy decisions. It would allow them to conceal more of their working documents than other state and local officials. And it would withhold documents from misconduct investigations.
For example, it would not compel legislators to release policy analyses prepared by legislative staff, even after a bill becomes law. As The Seattle Times wrote editorially, “Such analyses can help illuminate … how a proposed policy change might raise or lower residents’ taxes.”
Pedersen and co-sponsors are pushing the bill as a compromise regarding the important issue of the Public Records Act. But after rebukes from the courts and the public, there is no need for compromise; there is only a need for lawmakers to follow the law just as members of the Clark County Council and Vancouver City Council must do. Skirting the law in the past does not entitle legislators to alter that law to their liking.
The fact that some lawmakers are continuing to fight a losing battle is an affront to the public. They should drop their appeal of the court ruling and stop trying to find wiggle room in the Public Records Act, recognizing that the people of Washington have made their feelings clear on this issue.
