OLYMPIA, Wash. — Washington lawmakers are racing to pass legislation meant to circumvent a recent court ruling that found they were fully subject to the state’s public disclosure laws.
The measure is set to receive floor votes in both the Senate and House Friday, just two days after the bill was introduced. The bill would retroactively remove the legislative branch from the state’s voter-approved Public Records Act so that lawmakers would be able to shield records sought by a coalition of media groups, led by The Associated Press, who prevailed in court last month.
The bill, co-sponsored by Democratic Senate Majority Leader Sharon Nelson and Republican Senate Minority Leader Mark Schoesler, would allow release of some lawmaker correspondence, “specified information” from lawmaker calendars, and final disciplinary reports beginning on July 1. However, because of the retroactivity language, it would prohibit the release of the records being sought by the coalition of news organizations that sued last September.
The Legislature is in the midst of appealing the Jan. 19 ruling of Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Lanese, who ruled state representatives and senators and their offices are fully subject to the same broad public disclosure requirements that cover other local and state elected officials and employees at state agencies.
Besides AP, the groups involved in the lawsuit are: public radio’s Northwest News Network, KING-TV, KIRO 7, Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington, The Spokesman-Review, the Washington Newspaper Publishers Association, Sound Publishing, Tacoma News Inc. and The Seattle Times.
Legislative leaders from all four political caucuses issued statements in support of the measure, and Nelson, in that written statement, called the bill a “good balance between privacy, transparency and the legislature’s ability to do its job.”
Under the measure, exemptions from disclosure would include records of policy development, as well as any records that would “violate an individual’s right to privacy.” While final disciplinary reports against lawmakers would be subject to disclosure, emails or other documentation of allegations of things like sexual harassment or misconduct that doesn’t result in an official report — which were among the records the news coalition was seeking — would not. Any person wanting to challenge a records denial would have to seek review by the Senate Facilities and Operations Committee or the House Executive Rules Committee, whose rulings would be final. No review by the courts would be allowed.
Instead of an official public hearing, a more informal work session was hastily scheduled Thursday after the measure was introduced. While public testimony was allowed, there was no committee vote and the bill was pulled directly to the Senate floor calendar. The Senate is expected to vote on the bill sometime Friday afternoon or evening, followed by the House.
“It’s breathtaking to have a bill show up this late in session on this most important issue and for the Legislature to step into an ongoing lawsuit at this moment, albeit not going well for you,” Rowland Thompson, executive director of Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington, told the joint session of the House and Senate state government committees Thursday.
The measure has an emergency clause attached, which means that instead of taking effect 90 days after the end of session, like most bills, it would take effect immediately, ensuring that there could be no referendum to challenge it.
It’s unclear whether Gov. Jay Inslee — who has said he believes lawmakers should be subject to the same transparency laws other government officials are — would veto the bill if it passes both chambers. If two-thirds of lawmakers support the measure, they could ultimately override any veto.
At least two of the lawmakers who were part of the work session said afterward that they would be voting against the measure in their respective chambers: Republican Sen. Mark Miloscia and Democratic Rep. Mike Pellicciotti, who released his records to media last year.
“The public has a right to have access to our public records,” Pellicciotti said. “If the court has spoken, we should honor what the court has already said.”
