Public
Records
Act
for Washington Cities,
Counties, and Special
Purpose Districts
Last Updated:
March 2019
Public Records Act
Copyright © 2019 by MRSC. All rights reserved. Except as permit-
ted under the Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication
may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means or
stored in a database or retrieval system without the prior written
permission of the publisher; however, governmental entities in the
state of Washington are granted permission to reproduce and dis-
tribute this publication for ocial use.
MRSC
2601 Fourth Avenue, Suite 800
Seattle, WA 98121-1280
(206) 625-1300
(800) 933-6772
www.MRSC.org
Revision History
March 2019
• Exemptions and Prohibitions: Updated list of common prohibitions and exemptions relevant
to local governments outside the PRA
• Appendix A: Added PRA related online resources
• Appendix C: Updated lists of state and federal exemptions and prohibition statutes not listed
in the PRA
Foreword
Because the legislature routinely updates the Public Records Act
statutes, and because the courts issue many decisions each year
interpreting the statutes, MRSC has chosen to update this publica-
tion as needed. e electronic version available here is our latest
version. If you like to use a printed copy, we recommend that you
print a new copy periodically, so that you have the benet of the
most recent updates.
Washington’s public disclosure laws apply to all Washington gov-
ernments, including counties, cities, towns, and special purpose
districts. We rst produced this publication in 1996 due to the
large volume of inquiries that the Municipal Research and Services
Center (MRSC) received over the years concerning public disclo-
sure. Since that time, numerous exemptions have been added to the
public disclosure statutes and the courts have issued many deci-
sions which aect the application of the statutes. We updated this
publication in 2004 to reect those changes.
Eective July 1, 2006 almost all of the public records disclosure
statutes, now called the Public Records Act, were recodied, neces-
sitating another revision of this publication in 2006. e disclosure
statutes used to be codied in chapter 42.17 RCW, but were recodi-
ed to a new chapter 42.56 RCW. Conversion tables for the statutes
are in Appendix B of this publication and will help you understand
references to the statutory numbering you might come across in
earlier court decisions and other documents discussing the public
records laws. Also included in the conversion tables, and in the
main text of this publication, are citations to the Public Records
Act Model Rules (which now include rules specically related to
electronic records). ose Model Rules are located in chapter 44-14
of the Washington Administrative Code.
is material is intended for use by local government employees
and ocials, and we have presented it in a format that we hope
will be easy to use and understand. For further research, we have
provided the reader with footnotes and appendices.
Special acknowledgment is given to Jim Doherty, Legal Consultant,
who prepared the original publication and oversaw this revision.
Contents
Introduction 7
Concerning the Public Records Act Model Rules 8
Public Records Exemption Accountability Committee 9
Government Records: Local Government’s Duty to Provide Access 10
Acting in Good Faith – Disclosing a Record in Error 11
Acting in Good Faith – Penalties, Attorney’s Fees, and Costs 12
What Are Public Records? 13
Electronic Data and Records 14
Determining What Must Be Disclosed Under the Public Records Act 16
Specific Exemptions and Prohibitions 16
Exempt Records and Redaction 28
Redacting Information in Records Made Available to the Public 31
Exemptions and Prohibitions Outside the Public Records Act 33
Criminal History, Juvenile, Sexual Offense, Jail and Inmate, and Law Enforcement Records 36
Criminal History Records – Chapter 10.97 RCW 36
Juvenile Records – Chapter 13.50 RCW 36
Sexual Offender Information – Chapter 4.24 RCW 36
Jail and Inmate Records – Chapter 70.48 RCW 37
Law Enforcement Records 37
Personnel Records 39
Inspection by Local Government Officials and Employees 41
Employee Inspection of Personnel File 41
Identity and Motivation of Persons Requesting Records or Lists – Does it Matter? 42
Prisoner Injunction Provision – 2009 Legislation 42
Lists of Individuals Requested for Commercial Purposes 42
Electrical Utility Records Sought by Police 44
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Data Requested for Commercial or Non-commercial Purposes 45
Procedures for Making Records Available for Public Inspection 46
Public Records Officer – RCW 42.56.580 46
Index of Records – RCW 42.56.070 46
List of Exemption and Prohibition Statutes Not Contained in Chapter 42.56 RCW 46
Form of Request – RCW 42.56.100 47
Protection of Public Records and Agency Functions – RCW 42.56.100 47
Times for Inspection and Copying – RCW 42.56.090 48
Charges for Copying – RCW 42.56.070(7), (8) and RCW 42.56.120 48
Deposits and Responding in Installments – RCW 42.56.120 49
Prompt Responses Required – RCW 42.56.520 49
Additional Time for Response – RCW 42.56.520 50
Unclear Request for Information – RCW 42.56.520 50
Denial of Request for Records Disclosure – RCW 42.56.520 50
Local Government-Initiated Court Action to Prevent Disclosure – RCW 42.56.540 51
Judicial Review of Local Agency Action – RCW 42.56.550 52
Penalties, Attorney’s Fees, and Costs If Local Government Loses in Court – RCW 42.56.550(4) 52
Retention and Destruction of Public Records 54
Preservation of Electronic Public Records 54
Appendix A: Recommended Resources 56
Appendix B: Cross-Reference Guide for 2006 Recodification 57
Appendix C: Exemption and Prohibition Statutes Not Listed in Chapter 42.56 RCW 67
7Public Records Act
Introduction
In 1972 the voters in state of Washington adopted Initiative 276,
which required that most records maintained by state, county, and
city governments be made available to members of the public. e
public disclosure statutes have been frequently revised over the
past three decades. e latest revision of the disclosure statutes are
found in chapter 42.56 RCW, and are referred to as the Public Re-
cords Act.
1
Although the public records disclosure statutes do not
apply to judicial records (case les),
2
the legislature has specically
extended their coverage to state legislative records.
3
In addition, the
public records disclosure statutes apply equally to “every county,
city, town, municipal corporation, quasi-municipal corporation,
or special purpose district” or “any oce, department, division,
bureau, board, commission, or agency thereof, or other local public
a g e n c y.”
4
is publication will refer to these units of government
collectively as “local government” or “local agency.”
is publication discusses all of the statutory disclosure exemptions
which are relevant to local governments, as well as the mandatory
procedures for responding to a public records disclosure request.
roughout the text are questions and answers relating to diverse
public disclosure issues; they reect the broad range of public dis-
1
See RCW 42.56.020.
2
See Nast v. Michels, 107 Wn.2d 300 (1986) (holding that the Public Disclosure
Act did not provide access to court case les, instead, the public disclosure of court case
les is governed by other Washington statutes and past court decisions, i.e., common law);
accord Beuhler v. Small, 115 Wn. App. 914, 918 (2003) (nding that the trial court prop-
erly concluded that the PDA did not grant the plainti a right to access a judge’s computer
les); see also, In re Personal Restraint of Gentry, 137 Wn.2d 378, 389–90 (1999) (holding
that under GR 15(c)(2)(B), case records would not be sealed from the public, because the
defendant’s right to a fair trial was not imperiled nor was sealing the motions necessary
to prevent a serious and imminent threat to any compelling interest). Also see Dreiling v.
Jain, 151 Wn.2d 900 (2004) and WAC 44-14-01001 and Spokane & E. Lawyer v. Tomp-
kins, 136 Wn. App. 616 (2007) and WAC 44-14-01001. On 10/15/2009 the Washington
Supreme Court upheld the Nast decision in City of Federal Way v. Koenig.
3
RCW 42.56.010(2).
4
Telford v. urston County Bd. of Comm’rs, 95 Wn. App. 149, 152 (1999), review
denied 138 Wn.2d 1015 (1999). In determining whether an organization is a public agen-
cy under the PDA, the appeals court has adopted a four factor balancing test: “e factors
are: (1) whether the entity performs a governmental function; (2) the level of government
funding; (3) the extent of government involvement or regulation; and (4) whether the en-
tity was created by government.” See also Michael R. Kenyon and Stephen R. King, “Gov-
ernment Contractors and the Washington Public Disclosure Act: When Private Docu-
ments Become Public Records,” Legal Notes Information Bulletin No. 509 (2001) (analysis
of public agency determinations). See also WAC 44-14-01001.
1
CHAPTER ONE
8Public Records Act
closure questions answered by MRSC over the years. Because this publication is directed toward a
wide audience of local government ocials and employees, many of the citations to legal author-
ity are located in the footnotes, rather than in the body of the text.
Appendix A has sample local government policies, ordinances, and forms related to public dis-
closure. Appendix B has the RCW conversion tables that will assist with the 2006 statutory re-
numbering (included with the conversion tables are citations to the corresponding sections of the
Public Records Act Model Rules). Appendix C is a list of state laws, other than those in chapter
42.56 RCW, aecting condentiality and disclosure of public records.
Do not be surprised if you have a public disclosure question which is not discussed in this pub-
lication. Disclosure issues are almost as numerous as the public records in your custody. MRSC
also has helpful Public Records Act information on our website, including:
• Public Records Act Court Decision,
• OPMA and PRA Practice Tips and Checklists.
If you need additional assistance when analyzing disclosure questions, please contact your legal
counsel or MRSC.
Question: Does the federal Freedom of Information Act govern public access to any local govern-
ment records?
Answer: No. The federal Freedom of Information Act applies only to federal agencies and the records
maintained by those agencies. However, state courts will, in appropriate situations, look to the fed-
eral Freedom of Information Act and case law interpreting that act when interpreting similar provi-
sions in the state public disclosure statutes.
5
Concerning the Public Records Act Model Rules
In 2005, the state legislature directed the Attorney General to adopt advisory “model rules” for
state and local agencies.
6
ese Model Rules are now published in the Washington Administrative
Code at chapter 44-14. ough the current version of the Model Rules deals mostly with disclo-
sure procedures, there are instructive comments regarding some specic disclosure exemptions,
such as the right to privacy, the attorney-client privilege, and the deliberative process exemption.
e legislature granted the Attorney General the discretion to periodically revise the Model Rules.
Cities and counties should review the Model Rules and determine whether they wish to incorporate
some or all of the Model Rules into their own local disclosure procedures or policies.
e WAC sections quoted below are taken from the “Introductory Comments” to the Model
Rules, and provide some explanation for their purpose and role.
5
Servais v. Port of Bellingham, 127 Wn.2d 820, 835 (1995); see also PAWS v. UW, 125 Wn.2d 243, 265 (1994).
6
RCW 42.56.570.
9Public Records Act
WAC 44-14-00001 - Statutory Authority and purpose.
. . . e overall goal of the model rules is to establish a culture of compliance among
agencies and a culture of cooperation among requestors by standardizing best practices
throughout the state. e attorney general encourages state and local agencies to adopt the
model rules (but not necessarily the comments) by regulation or ordinance.
WAC 44-14-00002 - Format of model rules.
We are publishing the model rules with comments. e comments have ve-digit WAC
numbers such as WAS 44-14-04001. e model rules themselves have three-digit WAC
numbers such as 44-14-040.
e comments are designed to explain the basis and rationale for the rules themselves as
well as to provide broader context and legal guidance. . . .
WAC 44-14-00003 - Model rules and comments are nonbinding.
e model rules, and the comments accompanying them, are advisory only and do not
bind any agency. Accordingly, many of the comments to the model rules use the word
“should” or “may” to describe what an agency or requestor is encouraged to do. e use of
the words “should” or “may” are permissive, not mandatory, and are not intended to cre-
ate any legal duty.
While the model rules and comments are nonbinding, they should be carefully considered
by requestors and agencies. e model rules and comments were adopted aer extensive
statewide hearings and voluminous comments from a wide variety of interested parties.
Public Records Exemption Accountability Committee
In 2007 the legislature created a public records exemption accountability committee.
7
is broad-
based group is charged with reviewing the existing exemptions and annually submitting their rec-
ommendations to the governor, attorney general, and to the appropriate committees of the house
of representatives and the senate.
10Public Records Act
Government Records: Local
Government’s Duty to Provide Access
Local government agencies are required, within ve days of receiv-
ing a public disclosure request, to respond by (1) providing the
requested record; (2) providing an internet address and link on
the agency’s website to the specic records requested, except that
if the requestor noties the agency that he or she cannot access the
records through the internet, then the agency must provide copies
of the record or allow the requestor to view copies using an agency
computer; (3) acknowledging receipt of the request and providing
a reasonable estimate of the time required to ll the request; or (4)
denying the request.
8
Given limited budgets and sta, local agencies
tend to have all available resources invested in day-to-day running
of the agency. Requests for disclosure of public records oen occur
at inconveniently busy times. Despite the extra burden that disclo-
sure requests place on busy agency sta, every government ocial
and employee should be reminded of the strongly-worded language
that was incorporated into the public disclosure act:
e people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the
agencies that serve them. e people, in delegating author-
ity, do not give their public servants the right to decide what
is good for the people to know and what is not good for
them to know. e people insist on remaining informed so
that they may maintain control over the instruments they
have created. e public records subdivision of this chapter
shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly
construed to promote this public policy.9
When passed in 1972, Initiative 276 contained a similar public
policy statement:
It is hereby declared by the sovereign people to be the public
policy of the state of Washington: . . . (11) at, mindful
of the right of individuals to privacy and of the desirability
of the ecient administration of government, full access
to information concerning the conduct of government on
2
CHAPTER TWO
11Public Records Act
every level must be assured as a fundamental and necessary precondition to the sound
governance of a free society.
10
Both the state legislature and the voters of Washington are clear about their position on public
disclosure: the citizens of this state have a right to know almost all of the details of how local and
state governments are run. e courts have enforced this policy by liberally construing the Act’s
disclosure provisions and narrowly construing its exemptions.
11
Working for local government is like working inside a goldsh bowl. Almost everything is open
to public scrutiny. It is the duty of agency sta to respond to public disclosure requests eciently
and graciously since the public is not only your client, but also your employer. Although agency
sta may become annoyed at a disclosure request because of the time it takes to locate records, or
because the records may disclose a mistake or improper action, the following statutory provision
should serve as a reminder of the importance of open government:
Courts shall take into account the policy of this chapter that free and open examination of
public records is in the public interest, even though such examination may cause inconve-
nience or embarrassment to public ocials and others.
12
From a practical standpoint, dealing with requests in a responsive and courteous manner mini-
mizes public distrust of government, thus preventing a public disclosure request from escalating
into an expensive and time consuming legal event.
Question: Must the city disclose a letter of resignation from a disgruntled employee when the
letter consists of a rambling tirade in which the employee criticizes his supervisor, the mayor and the
council for a number of decisions?
Answer: The letter must be disclosed. The city may redoct from the letter only information which is
covered by a specic statutory exemption.
Acting in Good Faith – Disclosing a Record in Error
All requests for public records must be examined carefully, and all requested records must be
provided except for those records which are clearly exempt from disclosure. A court will look fa-
vorably on a good faith attempt to comply with the public disclosure act if an employee discloses
a public record, and later analysis or court decision shows it should not have been disclosed. In
such a circumstance, a local government may be immune from liability:
No public agency, public ocial, public employee, or custodian shall be liable, nor shall
a cause of action exist, for any loss or damage based upon the release of a public record if
the public agency, public ocial, public employee, or custodian acted in good faith in at-
tempting to comply with the provisions of this chapter.
13
10
RCW 42.17.010.
11
Limstrom v. Ladenburg, 136 Wn.2d 595, 604 (1998) (citing RCW 42.17.251).
12
RCW 42.56.550(3).
13
RCW 42.56.060.
12Public Records Act
In order to act in good faith, local government employees and ocials making disclosure deci-
sions must be familiar with the public disclosure requirements and the many exemptions con-
tained in the statutes.
Acting in Good Faith – Penalties, Attorney’s Fees, and Costs
Acting in “good faith” will not absolve an agency from the imposition of court costs, attorney fees,
and potential penalties for erroneously withholding public records, but can be taken into consid-
eration by a judge when determining the amount of penalties. RCW 42.56.550(4) provides:
Any person who prevails against an agency in any action in the courts seeking the right
to inspect or copy any public record or the right to receive a response to a public record
request within a reasonable amount of time shall be awarded all costs, including reason-
able attorney fees, incurred in connection with such legal action. In addition, it shall be
within the discretion of the court to award such person an amount not to exceed one hun-
dred dollars for each day that he or she was denied the right to inspect or copy said public
record.
Note that prior to July of 2011 the above statute required that the minimum penalty for wrong-
fully withholding a record was $5 per day. Many of the court decisions dealing with penalties
stressed that mandatory provision. Keep that statutory amendment in mind if you review prior
court decisions or articles dealing with PRA penalties.
Legal advice should be sought in situations where statutory requirements seem unclear. Fortu-
nately, court decisions and attorney general opinions are available for guidance in this complex
eld. e Public Records Act statutes, along with the Open Public Meetings Act,18 provide the
foundation for open government. Such openness encourages public participation and awareness,
and helps dispel fears that local governments are not responsible or responsive to the people.
Question: Must local government agencies disclose copies of their bank records?
Answer: Yes. Bank records concern public funds and should be disclosed upon request. There is one
exception: If the agency’s bank accounts are kept in such a way that disclosure of a particular account
record would reveal exempt tax information, then that data should not be disclosed. For instance, if a
jurisdiction has only two or three motels, disclosure of hotel/motel tax revenue could enable a person
to estimate the income of a particular taxpayer.
13Public Records Act
What Are Public Records?
A “public record” is dened to include,
. . . any writing containing information relating to the
conduct of government or the performance of any govern-
mental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or
retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical
form or characteristics.
14
“Writing” is also dened in the disclosure statutes:
“Writing” means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photo-
stating, photographing, and every other means of recording
any form of communication or representation, including,
but not limited to, letters, words, pictures, sounds, or sym-
bols, or combination thereof, and all papers, maps, mag-
netic or paper tapes, photographic lms and prints, motion
picture, lm and video recordings, magnetic or punched
cards, discs, drums, diskettes, sound recordings, and other
documents including existing data compilations from which
information may be obtained or translated.
15
Whether private business records can relate to “conduct of govern-
ment” has not been addressed by Washington courts.
16
However,
the Washington Supreme Court has held that where “records relate
to the conduct of . . . [a public agency] . . . and to its governmental
function. . . . [T]he records are ‘public records’ within the scope of
the public records act.”
17
Local governments are not required to create documents in order
to comply with a request for specic information.
18
Rather, they
must produce existing records for review and copying. Also, local
governments are not obligated to compile information from various
records so that information is in a form that is more useful to the
requestor. For example, if someone wants records concerning the
time it took the city re department to respond to residential res
occurring between midnight and 6:00 a.m. over a two-year period,
18
Citizens for Fair Share, 117 Wn. App. at 435 (citing Smith v. Okanogan County,
100 Wn. App. 7, 13–14 (2000)). See also WAC 44-14-04003(6).
3
CHAPTER THREE
14Public Records Act
the city only needs to provide copies of existing records.
19
City employees are not required to do
research for private individuals.
20
Question: Is the city clerk required to provide information over the phone to a newspaper reporter
who is asking “what occurred at the council meeting last night?”
Answer: This is not a public disclosure request, because the caller is not asking to review or copy a
public record. There is no legal obligation to provide oral information concerning what occurred at
the meeting. However, the reporter may request a copy of the minutes of the meeting after they are
prepared. It is an administrative decision whether city sta should answer oral requests for non-
record information. See also WAC 44-14-04002(2).
Electronic Data and Records
Increasing amounts of public information are now contained in electronic format, rather than on
paper. Public disclosure laws apply to electronic data.
21
e state legislature formed a Public Infor-
mation Access Policy Task Force in 1994 to examine the issue of providing broad public access to
government records by electronic means. Aer reviewing the recommendations of the task force,
the legislature passed legislation strongly encouraging expansion of electronic access to public
records:
Broad public access to state and local government records and information has potential
for expanding citizen access to that information and for improving government services.
Electronic methods for locating and transferring information can improve linkages be-
tween and among citizens, organizations, businesses, and governments. Information must
be managed with great care to meet the objectives of citizens and their governments.
It is the intent of the legislature to encourage state and local governments to develop,
store, and manage their public records and information in electronic formats to meet their
missions and objectives. Further, it is the intent of the legislature for state and local gov-
ernments to set priorities for making public records widely available electronically to the
public.
22
E-mail in particular has been the topic of many questions regarding public records. According to
the State Archivist, who is responsible for creating public record retention guidelines,
Individual E-mail messages may be public records with legally mandated retention re-
quirements, or may be information with no retention value. E-mail messages are public
records when they are created or received in the transaction of public business and re-
19
Smith, 100 Wn. App. at 18.
20
Bonamy v. City of Seattle, 92 Wn. App. 403, 409 (1993).
21
See Isabel R. Safora, “Municipal Policies on Internet Usage & E-mail Document Retention,” Legal Notes Information
Bulletin No. 497, §§ VI–VII (1997) (discussing application of the PDA to e-mail and retention).
22
RCW 43.105.250.
15Public Records Act
tained as evidence of ocial policies, actions, decisions, or transactions. Such messages
must be identied, led, and retained just like records in other formats.
23
For guidance, the State Archivist lists the following e-mail messages that are usually public re-
cords and must be retained:
• Policy and procedure directives.
• Correspondence or memoranda related to ocial public business.
• Agendas and minutes of meetings.
• Documents relating to legal or audit issues.
• Messages which document agency actions, decisions, operations and responsibilities.
• Documents that initiate, authorize or complete a business transaction.
• Dras of documents that are circulated for comment or approval.
• Final reports or recommendations.
• Appointment calendars.
• E-mail distribution lists.
• Routine information requests.
• Other messages sent or received that relate to the transaction of local government
business.
24
Conversely, the State Archivist lists the following e-mail messages which are usually administra-
tive materials with no retention value:
• Information-only copies, or extracts of documents distributed for reference or conve-
nience, such as announcements or bulletins.
• Phone message slips that do not contain information that may constitute a public record.
• Copies of published materials.
• Informational copies.
• Preliminary dras.
• Routing slips.
25
Additional information and guidance for determining whether e-mail is a public record can be
found in Records Management Guidelines for All Local Government Agencies, a publication by the
State Archives Division of the Washington Secretary of State, and available online at
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/archives/gs.aspx.
e Model Rules have been amended to include a section on electronic records. See WAC 44-14-
050, and the comments to that provision found at WAC 44-14-05001 through WAC 44-14-05005.
We recommend that you read those provisions carefully. e same basic requirements for re-
sponding to paper records also apply to electronic records.
23
Wash. Secretary of State, Local Government Agencies of Washington State: Records Management Guidelines, p. S-62,
updated 1/05, available at http://www.secstate.wa.gov/archives/gs.aspx.
24
Id.
25
Id.
16Public Records Act
Determining What Must Be Disclosed Under the Public
Records Act
ere are three questions a local agency must consider when responding to a request for disclo-
sure. First, are the requested records exempt from disclosure or prohibited from being disclosed?
Second, if they are exempt, can information be deleted from the record so it might still be re-
leased? ird, if the records are not exempt, should information be deleted that would constitute
an unreasonable invasion of privacy if disclosed?
Specific Exemptions and Prohibitions
All agency records are available for review by the public unless they are specically exempted
26
or
prohibited from disclosure by the statutes. If no statutory exemption or prohibition covers the re-
quested record, it must be disclosed.
27
is section discusses exemptions listed in RCW 42.56.230
through 42.56.480. However, there are numerous other exemptions and disclosure prohibitions
located elsewhere in the statutes that are relevant for local governments. Appendix C of this publi-
cation contains a listing of the many disclosure exemptions and prohibitions that are not located
in the Public Records Act (chapter 42.56 RCW). Some of those additional exemptions and prohi-
bitions are discussed in chapter 5 of this publication.
e public disclosure act provides that exemptions are to be narrowly construed; consequently,
the courts have consistently ruled that only information specically exempted can be withheld
from public disclosure.
28
Note: If, aer reviewing the statutes, you are unsure whether a document meets the exemption
criteria, consult with your department head or legal counsel.
e italicized statutory sections below are taken directly from the statutes and pertain to local
governments. e records designated below are exempt from disclosure.
RCW 42.56.230 Personal information.
e following personal information is exempt from public inspection and copying under this chapter:
(1) Personal information in any les maintained for students in public schools, patients
or clients of public institutions or public health agencies, or welfare recipients.
(2) Personal information, including but not limited to, addresses, telephone numbers,
personal electronic mail addresses, social security numbers, emergency contact and date of
birth information for a participant in a public or nonprot program serving or pertaining
to children, adolescents, or students, including but not limited to early learning or child care
26
Exemptions are permissive, not mandatory. WAC 44-14-06002(1) and AGO 1980 No. 1.
27
RCW 42.56.070; see also PAWS, 125 Wn.2d at 257-61.
28
RCW 42.56.030; Brouillet v. Cowles Pub., 114 Wn.2d 788, 793 (1990). (“e public disclosure act mandates disclosure
of all public records not falling under specic exemptions delineated in the act. In keeping with the act’s policy, we construe ex-
emptions from mandatory disclosure narrowly.”)
17Public Records Act
services, parks and recreation programs, youth development
programs, and aer-school programs. Emergency contact
information may be provided to appropriate authorities and
medical personnel for the purpose of treating the individual
during an emergency situation;
is exemption, which became eective in January 2012, applies to
contact information for minors who may be participating in pro-
grams oered by local government agencies. In the past such infor-
mation (except for social security numbers) had to be disclosed.
(3) Personal information in les maintained for employ-
ees, appointees, or elected ocials of any public agency to the
extent that disclosure would violate their right to privacy.
is “personal information” exemption concerns personnel les.
Since some of the information in employee personnel les may be
protected by the employee’s right to privacy, careful scrutiny should
precede any decision to disclose those records. Files of retired em-
ployees are also covered by this provision.
29
Additional analysis of
personnel records disclosure and right to privacy issues are found
later in this chapter and in chapter 7.
Question: Must a local agency disclose, upon request, copies of
phone bills, which contain unlisted phone numbers placed on the
bills as a result of personal calls made by local agency employees?
Answer: Yes. No exemption applies. The phone calls may be
personal or private, but because billing records of the calls are not
part of the employees’ personnel les, neither RCW 42.56.230 or
42.56.250(3) apply. This is the case even if the phone bills include
unlisted phone numbers of local agency employees. Many cities
and counties allow employees to make personal calls from their
work phones, but there is no exemption which allows the local
governments to delete unlisted numbers from their phone bills. If
a city or county employee wishes to maintain condentiality of an
unlisted phone number, calls to that number should not be made
29
Seattle Fire Fighters v. Hollister, 48 Wn. App. 129, at 134 (1987).
4
CHAPTER FOUR
18Public Records Act
from their work phone phone.
(4) Information required of any taxpayer in connection with the assessment or collection
of any tax if the disclosure of the information to other persons would (i) be prohibited to such
persons by RCW 84.08.210, 82.32.330, 84.40.020, or 84.40.340 or (ii) violate the taxpayer’s
right to privacy or result in unfair competitive disadvantage to the taxpayer.
Agencies should be very cautious about the release of any taxpayer information. is exemption
does not prohibit disclosure of basic tax information such as the totals of various tax revenues; it
only prohibits disclosure of information which can be identied with a particular taxpayer.
(5) Credit card numbers, debit card numbers, electronic check numbers, card expira-
tion dates, or bank or other nancial account numbers, except when disclosure is expressly
required by government or other law.
RCW 42.56.240 Investigative, law enforcement, and crime victims.
e following investigative, law enforcement, and crime victim information is exempt from public
disclosure and copying under this chapter:
(1) Specic intelligence information and specic investigative records compiled by inves-
tigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies, and state agencies vested with the respon-
sibility to discipline members of any profession, the nondisclosure of which is essential to
eective law enforcement or for the protection of any person’s right to privacy;
e Washington Supreme Court has held that an active police investigation le, in its entirety, is
exempt from disclosure under the Act’s “eective law enforcement” exemption, unless the law en-
forcement agency decides that specic information is not essential to solving the case.
30
e court
will not second guess a law enforcement agency’s decision not to disclose information contained
in an open investigation le. is eectively bars challenges to law enforcement agency disclo-
sure determinations with respect to such materials. Some factors the prosecutor should consider
include whether disclosure might inadvertently compromise apprehension of a suspect, divulge
sophisticated police investigative techniques, or disrupt the sharing of information between law
enforcement agencies.
31
However, if a suspect has already been arrested and the matter referred to the prosecutor for a
charging decision, information contained in the investigative le is disclosable unless disclosure
would impede eective law enforcement. Under these circumstances, the court is more willing to
look at what should be disclosed to the public.
As with any disclosable record, information concerning sexual oenses, some health matters, and
certain other private details can be deleted when disclosing police investigation reports in order
30
Newman v. King County, 133 Wn.2d 565, 574 (1997).
31
Cowles Pub. Co. v. Spokane Police Dept., City of Spokane, 139 Wn.2d 472, 478 (1999).
19Public Records Act
to protect a person’s right to privacy. See the information concerning redaction later in this chap-
ter.
(2) Information revealing the identity of persons who are witnesses to or victims of crime
or who le complaints with investigative, law enforcement, or penology agencies, other than
the public disclosure commission, if disclosure would endanger any person’s life, physical safe-
ty, or property. If at the time a complaint is led the complainant, victim or witness indicates
a desire for disclosure or nondisclosure, such desire shall govern. However, all complaints
led with the public disclosure commission about any elected ocial or candidate for public
oce must be made in writing and signed by the complainant under oath;
e exemption listed here, allows agencies to delete details from police investigation reports
which identify witnesses or victims of crimes, but only if disclosure would endanger any person’s
life, physical safety, or property.
(3) Any records of investigative reports prepared by any state, county, municipal, or
other law enforcement agency pertaining to sex oenses contained in chapter 9A.44 RCW or
sexually violent oenses as dened in RCW 71.09.020, which have been transferred to the
Washington association of sheris and police chiefs for permanent electronic retention and
retrieval pursuant to RCW40.14.070(2)(b);
(4) License applications under RCW 9.41.070; copies of license applications or informa-
tion on the applications may be released to law enforcement or corrections agencies, and
e above exemption refers to concealed pistol licenses.
(5) Information revealing the identity of child victims of sexual assault who are under
the age of eighteen. Identifying information means the child victim’s name, address, location,
photograph, and in cases in which the child victim is a relative or stepchild of the alleged
perpetrator, identication of the relationship between the child and the alleged perpetrator.
32
e intent of this exemption is to allow witnesses and victims of crimes to make statements to po-
lice ocers without fear that their identity will be made available to the public. A related statute,
RCW 10.97.130, prohibits the release of the names of juveniles who are victims of sex crimes.
RCW 42.56.250 Employment and licensing.
e following employment and licensing information is exempt from public inspection and copy-
ing under this chapter:
(1) Test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to administer a license,
employment, or academic examination;
32
See Koenig v. City of Des Moines, 158 Wn.2d 173.
20Public Records Act
is exemption enables local governments to keep private their employment testing materials,
questions and answers. is is crucial for local governments which use standardized tests for civil
service or other city recruitment.
(2) All applications for public employment, including the names of applicants, resumes,
and other related materials submitted with respect to an applicant;
is exemption enables individuals to apply for local government employment without worrying
about disclosure of their application, or of the fact that they are seeking employment. is exemp-
tion applies to all non-elective local government positions, including administrative positions,
such as city manager, or professional positions, such as city attorney or city engineer.
e broad wording of this exemption appears to cover not only resumes or application materials
of current job applicants, but also such materials submitted to the local government in connection
with current or past local government employees. ere is no case law conrming whether the
exemption should be interpreted so expansively. If the resume and other materials are in a current
employee’s personnel le, RCW42.56.230(2) would also apply. However, it would be rare that the
“right to privacy” protection of that subsection would apply to the types of information typically
contained in resumes and related documents.
is statutory section also protects from disclosure employment application records which con-
tain information submitted to a local government by prior employers in response to requests for
information about an applicant.
33
Question: If requested, must a local government disclose a record containing the names of those
who have notied the local government that they would like to be considered for appointment to a
vacant council position?
Answer: The names should probably be disclosed. The individuals are not applying for “local govern-
ment employment” as that would normally be understood.
(3) e residential addresses, residential telephone numbers, personal wireless telephone
numbers, personal electronic mail addresses, social security numbers, and emergency contact
information of employees or volunteers of a public agency, and the names, dates of birth,
residential addresses, residential telephone numbers, personal wireless telephone numbers,
personal electronic mail addresses, social security numbers, and emergency contact informa-
tion of dependents of employees or volunteers of a public agency that are held by any public
agency in personnel records, public employment related records, or volunteer rosters, or are
included in any mailing list of employees or volunteers of any public agency. For purposes of
this subsection, “employees” includes independent provider home care workers as dened in
RCW 74.39A.240;
33
See RCW 4.24.730, enacted in 2005, regarding an employee’s or former employee’s right to inspect written records of
their employer or former employer indicating to which prospective employers they have provided employment information.
21Public Records Act
is is the only disclosure exemption specically referring to individuals who are working with
the local government in a volunteer capacity. It is conceivable that a court interpreting other dis-
closure statutes, that are applicable to records relating to employees, might apply those statutes to
volunteers.
(4) Information which identies a person who, while an agency employee: (i) Seeks ad-
vice, under an informal process established by the employing agency, in order to ascertain his
or her rights in connection with a possible unfair practice under chapter 49.60 RCW against
the person; and (ii) requests his or her identity or any identifying information not be dis-
closed;
(5) Investigative records compiled by an employing agency conducting a current inves-
tigation of a possible unfair practice under chapter 49.60 RCW or of a possible violation of
other federal, state, or local laws prohibiting discrimination in employment; and
(6) [is subsection is not relevant for local government agencies.]
RCW 42.56.260 Real estate appraisals.
Except as is provided by chapter 8.26 RCW, the contents of real estate appraisals, made for
or by any agency relative to the acquisition or sale of property, until the project or prospective
sale is abandoned or until such time as all of the property has been acquired or the property
to which the sale relates is sold, are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. In no event
shall disclosure be denied for more than three years aer the appraisal.
is exemption allows local governments to keep appraisal information away from public scruti-
ny while negotiating a potential purchase or sale. Local government legislative bodies may review
and discuss condential appraisal information in an executive session,
34
and the councilmembers
or commissioners are prohibited from disclosing that information.
35
RCW 42.56.270 Financial, commercial, and proprietary information.
e following nancial, commercial, and proprietary information is exempt from disclosure under
this chapter:
(1) Valuable formulae, designs, drawings, computer source code or object code, and
research data obtained by any agency within ve years of the request for disclosure when
disclosure would produce private gain and public loss;
Several cases have interpreted this exemption. In one, the Washington Supreme Court found
that the cash ow analysis of port properties prepared for a port’s sole use in negotiations with
34
RCW 42.30.110(1)(b), (c).
35
RCW 42.23.070(4).
22Public Records Act
prospective joint venture partners was within the research data exemption.
36
In another case, the
court found that a university’s research data relating to intellectual property was exempt from dis-
closure.
37
In both decisions, the requesting party was denied his public disclosure request, because
he would have proted and the government would have incurred a loss.
By contrast, in a court of appeals decision the court found that documents used by professors and
accountants hired by the city, to perform credit and nancial analysis for the city’s loan guarantee
for private shopping center development, were not exempt.
38
e city was unable to show a public
loss resulting from the disclosure of the requested research.
MRSC has been asked whether this exemption applies to blueprints or other architectural draw-
ings submitted to a city’s building department for review. It is doubtful that the exemption would
oen apply, because disclosure would not necessarily cause both “private gain and public loss.”
Also, even though the person who submitted the materials has a copyright interest in the docu-
ments, disclosure is not automatically prohibited. A court has held that an individual with a
copyright interest in public records is not an indispensable party in an action to compel disclo-
sure, and those requesting copies of the materials may be entitled to the records if the facts meet
the “fair use doctrine.”
39
Consequently, MRSC has recommended that when there is a disclosure
request for these types of materials, the agency should immediately notify the person who sub-
mitted the documents or architectural drawings to allow the person with a copyright interest the
option of seeking a court order prohibiting disclosure.
40
In connection with the public bidding process, local governments oen obtain information which
bidders would not voluntarily divulge to their competitors. Such information may be exempt, if
the “public loss” factor can be met.
41
In any event, it would be wise to promptly notify a bidder if
the city receives a request for such records.
[e exemptions listed in subsections 2 through 11 of RCW 42.56.270 have limited applicability
to local government records.]
RCW 42.56.280 Preliminary dras, notes, recommendations, intra-agency memorandums.
42
Preliminary dras, notes, recommendations, and intra-agency memorandums in which opin-
ions are expressed or policies formulated or recommended are exempt under this chapter,
36
Servais v. Port of Bellingham, 127 Wn.2d 820 (1995).
37
PAWS, 125 Wn.2d at 243.
38
Spokane Research & Defense Fund v. City of Spokane, 96 Wn. App. 568, 575-77 (1999), rev. denied, 140 Wn.2d 1001
(2000).
39
Lindberg v. County of Kitsap, 133 Wn.2d 729, 745 (1997) (holding that “[a] copyright interest in the documents does
not of itself make the owner an indispensable party to a lawsuit demanding under a public disclosure statute the right to have cop-
ies or to make copies of them”).
40
e procedure for such court review is outlined in RCW 42.17.540.
41
See generally, Rocco N. Treppiedi, “Disclosing Proprietary Information Obtained in Competitive Bidding,” Legal Notes
Information Bulletin No. 432 (1985); Kyle J. Crews, “Second Update on Public Disclosure, Public Bidding Documents,” Legal
Notes Information Bulletin No. 491 (1995).
42
See WAC 44-14-06002(4) in the Model Rules for comments on this “deliberative process” exemption.
23Public Records Act
except that a specic record shall not be exempt when publicly cited by an agency in connec-
tion with any given action.
is exemption applies to records connected with the deliberative process. Only records contain-
ing opinions or recommendations are exempt. Factual materials which are being considered as
background material on a particular issue or problem are not exempt. For example, if a city trea-
surer or nance ocer prepares a nancial report for the mayor detailing the status of the city’s
expenditures for the current budget year, that document is not exempt from disclosure. Con-
versely, if that report contains recommendations for scal policy changes, any portions contain-
ing the recommendations would be exempt from disclosure. Also, memos concerning possible
scal policy changes written between a mayor, nance ocer, or department heads are exempt.
is exemption does not apply aer the policies or recommendations set forth in the requested
document(s) have been implemented.
43
e Washington Supreme Court has determined that before an agency is entitled to rely on this
exemption, it must show (1) that the records contain pre-decisional opinions or recommenda-
tions of subordinates expressed as part of a deliberative process; (2) that disclosure would be inju-
rious to the deliberative or consultative function of the process; (3) that disclosure would inhibit
the ow of recommendations, observations, and opinions; and (4) that the materials covered
by the exemption reect policy recommendations and opinions and not the raw factual data on
which a decision is based.
44
A subsequently decided case has discussed how this “deliberative process” exemption would apply
to a preliminary list of issues to be addressed in collective bargaining negotiations.
45
Question: Are a clerk’s handwritten notes, which are used to prepare the formal council minutes,
exempt from disclosure? How about unapproved drafts of the minutes?
Answer: Neither are exempt. The clerk is merely making notes of what is said and done by the coun-
cil at an open, public meeting. We recommend that any preliminary drafts of council minutes which
are provided to the public be clearly labeled as preliminary drafts.
RCW 42.56.290 Agency party to controversy.
46
Records which are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records
would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pend-
ing in the superior court are exempt from disclosure under this chapter.
43
Dawson, 120 Wn.2d at 793.
44
PAWS, 125 Wn.2d at 256.
45
ACLU v. City of Seattle, 121 Wn. App. 544 (2004), and the subsequent unreported decision with the same name, de-
cided by the Court of Appeals on 7/20/2009.
46
See WAC 44-14-06002(3) in the Model Rules for comments on the attorney-client privilege.
24Public Records Act
is exemption concerns attorney work product. e term “controversy” refers to pending litiga-
tion, threatened litigation, and completed litigation.
47
Whenever a local government is involved in
a current or potential legal controversy, disclosure of any related documents should be discussed
and reviewed carefully with the local government attorney.
Some attorneys provide detailed billing statements that may include entries that show an attor-
ney’s “work product” or litigation strategy. e legislature adopted an “intent” statute providing
guidance on billing statements sent to public agencies by their legal counsel, whether in-house or
not – see RCW 42.56.904.
48
e Attorney General has posted a “guidance document” concerning the attorney-client privilege
and the work product doctrine on the Attorney General’s web page dealing with the Model Rules
– see www.atg.wa.gov/records/modelrules.
Question: Must a local government disclose a “separation agreement” entered into with an em-
ployee in order to settle a claim and avoid litigation? (The terms of the agreement were worked out
by the council in an executive session, with the assistance of the local government attorney.)
Answer: The agreement must be disclosed. The relevant controversy exemption does not apply
in this situation, because this document would be available to a party under the rules of pretrial
discovery. Furthermore, the public has a legitimate interest in the details of a settlement agreement
involving the government’s conduct of its aairs and the expenditure of public funds.
49
RCW 42.56.300 Archeological sites.
Records, maps or other information identifying the location of archaeological sites in order to
avoid the looting or depredation of such sites are exempt from disclosure under this chapter.
RCW 42.56.310 Library records.
Any library record, the primary purpose of which is to maintain control of library materials,
or to gain access to information, that discloses or could be used to disclose the identity of a
library user is exempt from disclosure under this chapter.
RCW 42.56.320 Educational information. [Not relevant for cities and counties.]
RCW 42.56.330 Public utilities and transportation.
47
Dawson, 120 Wn.2d at 791; see also O’Connor v. Wash. State Dept. of Social & Health Services, 143 Wn.2d 895, 912
(2001) (holding that records relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party are exempt if those records would not be avail-
able to another party under superior court rules of pretrial discovery).
48
See also, West v. urston County, 144 Wn. App. 573 (2008) and Yakima County v. Herald-Republic, 170 Wn.2d 775
(2011).
49
See Yakima Newspapers v. Yakima, 77 Wn. App. 319 (1995).
25Public Records Act
e following information relating to public utilities and transportation is exempt from disclosure
under this chapter: [Subsection (1) is not relevant for local government agencies.]
(2) e residential addresses and, telephone numbers, electronic contact information, and
customer-specic utility usage and billing information in increments less than a billing cycle
of the customers of a public utility contained in the records or lists held by the public utility
of which they are customers, except that this information may be released to the division of
child support or the agency or rm providing child support enforcement for another state un-
der Title IV-D of the federal social security act, for the establishment, enforcement, or modi-
cation of a support order.
Question: Must the city disclose the amount owed by a utility customer, and whether the account is
delinquent or not?
Answer: Yes. Records showing the amount owed by a utility customer, and whether the account is
delinquent must be produced in response to a public records request; however, customer-specic
utility usage and billing information in increments less than a billing cycle is exempt. As well, the
customer’s residential address, phone numbers and email address are also exempt.
Question: Would the RCW 42.56.330 exemption prohibit a city from providing a mailing list of its
utility customers to the directly adjacent city? (The neighboring city is going to be undertaking some
major utility construction which will temporarily impact utility customers in the other city. It wants
to mail out notices to the impacted residents of that city.)
Answer: This is not a request for public disclosure, but disclosure to another municipality. Conse-
quently, there is no statutory reason to prevent one city from providing this information to another
city.
(3) e names, residential addresses, residential telephone numbers, and other individu-
ally identiable records held by an agency in relation to a vanpool, carpool, or other ride-
sharing program or services; however, these records may be disclosed to other persons who
apply for ride-matching services and who need that information in order to identify potential
riders or drivers with whom to share rides;
(4) e personally identifying information or current or former participants or applicants
in a paratransit or other transit service operated for the benet of persons with disabilities or
elderly persons;
(5) e personally identifying information of persons who acquire and use transit passes
….;
(6) [Deals with motor carrier intelligent transportation system information - not rel-
evant for local government agencies.]
26Public Records Act
(7) e personally identifying information of persons who acquire and use transponders
or other technology to facilitate payment of tolls ....
RCW 42.56.335 Public utility districts and municipally owned utilities – Restrictions on ac-
cess by law enforcement authorities.
e above subsection concerns police agencies’ inspection of electrical consumption records that
might indicate a drug growing operation in a particular residence or structure.
RCW 42.56.340 Timeshare, condominium, etc. owner lists.
is exemption relates to information held by the state department of licensing.
RCW 42.56.350 Health professionals.
is exemption deals with information about health care professionals held by the state depart-
ment of health.
RCW 42.56.360 Health care.
(1) e following health care information is exempt from disclosure under this chapter:
[Subsections (a) through (e) and (g) deal with information held by the state board of health or
state board of pharmacy, and are not relevant for local governments.]
(f) Except for published statistical compilations and reports relating to infant mortality re-
view studies that do not identify individual cases and sources of information, any records
or documents obtained, prepared, or maintained by the local health department for the
purposes of an infant mortality review conducted by the department of health under
RCW 70.05.170. . . .
(2) Chapter 70.02 RCW applies to public inspection and copying of health care information of pa-
tients.
RCW 42.56.370 Domestic Violence Program, rape crisis center clients.
Client records maintained by an agency that is a domestic violence program as dened in
RCW70.123.020 or 70.123.075 or a rape crisis center as dened in RCW 70.125.030 are exempt
from disclosure under this chapter.
RCW 42.56.380 Agriculture and livestock.
is exemption deals with information held by state agencies, not local governments.
27Public Records Act
RCW 42.56.390 Emergency or transitional housing.
Names of individuals residing in emergency or transitional housing that are furnished to the de-
partment of revenue or a county assessor to substantiate a claim for property tax exemption under
RCW84.36.043 are exempt from disclosure under this chapter.
RCW 42.56.400 Insurance and nancial institutions.
is exemption concerns records held by state agencies, not local governments.
RCW 42.56.410 Employment security department records.
Records maintained by the employment security department and subject to chapter 50.13 RCW if
provided to another individual or organization for operational, research, or evaluation purposes are
exempt from disclosure under this chapter.
RCW 42.56.420 Security.
e following information relating to security is exempt from disclosure under this chapter:
(1) ose portions of records assembled, prepared, or maintained to prevent, mitigate,
or respond to criminal terrorist acts, which are acts that signicantly disrupt the conduct of
government or of the general civilian population of the state or the United States and that
manifest an extreme indierence to human life, the public disclosure of which would have a
substantial likelihood of threatening public safety, consisting of:
(a) Specic and unique vulnerability assessments or specic and unique response or
deployment plans, including compiled underlying data collected in preparation of or
essential to the assessments, or to the response or deployment plans; and
(b) Records not subject to public disclosure under federal law that are shared by
federal or international agencies, and information prepared from national security
briengs provided to state or local government ocials related to domestic prepared-
ness for acts of terrorism.
(2) ose portions of records containing specic and unique vulnerability assessments or
specic and unique emergency and escape response plans at a city, county, or state adult or
juvenile correctional facility, the public disclosure of which would have a substantial likeli-
hood of threatening the security of a city, county, or state adult or juvenile correctional facil-
ity or any individual’s safety;
(3) Information compiled by school districts or schools in the development of their com-
prehensive safe school plans pursuant to RCW 28A.320.125, to the extent that they identify
specic vulnerabilities of school districts and each individual school;
28Public Records Act
(4) Information regarding the infrastructure and security of computer and telecommu-
nications networks, consisting of security passwords, security access codes and programs,
access codes for secure soware applications, security and service recovery plans, security risk
assessments, and security test results to the extent that they identify specic system vulner-
abilities; and
(5) e security section of transportation system safety and security program plans
required under RCW 35.21.228, 35A.21.300, 36.01.210, 36.57.120, 36.57A.170, and
81.112.180.
RCW 42.56.430 Fish and wildlife.
is exemption mostly concerns records held by state agencies and is not relevant for local gov-
ernments, except for subsection (2), dealing with information regarding sensitive wildlife data,
such as data concerning the nesting sites of endangered species, or information concerning spe-
cies that are threatened but have a commercial or black market value.
RCW 42.56.440 Veterans’ discharge papers – Exceptions.
County auditors dealing with veterans’ discharge papers need to read this statue carefully.
RCW 42.56.450 Check cashers and sellers licensing applications.
is exemption deals with records held by the state director of nancial institutions and is not
relevant for local governments.
RCW 42.56.460 Fireworks.
All records obtained and all reports produced as required by state reworks law, chapter 70.77 RCW,
are exempt from disclosure under this chapter.
RCW 42.56.470 Correctional industries workers.
is exemption is not relevant for local governments.
RCW 42.56.480 Inactive programs.
is exemption is not relevant for local governments.
Exempt Records and Redaction
e preceding section looked at specic records that are exempt from disclosure. Once a record
is found to be exempt, the local agency must determine whether personal information can be
deleted from the exempt record so that it might still be released.
29Public Records Act
e requirement that exempt material be deleted and the rest of the record disclosed, is some-
times referred to as redaction.
50
is section deals only with redaction pertaining to the exemp-
tions listed in the Public Records Act.
Having determined that a record is exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act,
RCW42.56.210(1) provides that “the exemptions of this section are inapplicable to the extent that
information, the disclosure of which would violate personal privacy or vital government interests,
can be deleted from the specic record sought (emphasis added).” erefore, exemptions will not
bar disclosure of records, where the local agency can delete information that would violate (1)
personal privacy or (2) vital government interests.
1. Redacting Information, Disclosure of Which Would Violate Personal Privacy
e terms “right to privacy,” “right of privacy,” “privacy,” or “personal privacy,” are found through-
out the Public Records Act.
51
In 1978 the state supreme court dened the right to privacy in
Washington to be coincident with the common law:
One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to
liability if the matter publicized is of a kind that (a) would be highly oensive to a reason-
able person, and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.
52
e court cited the following explanation as illustrative of the type of facts protected by the right
to privacy:
Every individual has some phases of his life and his activities and some facts about himself
that he does not expose to the public eye, but keeps entirely to himself or at most reveals
only to his family or to close personal friends. Sexual relations, for example, are normally
entirely private matters, as are family quarrels, many unpleasant or disgraceful illnesses,
most intimate personal letters, most details of a man’s life in his home, and some of his
past history that he would rather forget. When these intimate details of his life are spread
before the public gaze in a manner highly oensive to the ordinary reasonable man, there
is an actionable invasion of his privacy, unless the matter is one of legitimate public inter-
est.
53
In 1987 the legislature adopted this statement of the law, and it is now codied as RCW 42.56.050:
A person’s “right to privacy” . . . is invaded or violated only if disclosure of information
about the person: (1) Would be highly oensive to a reasonable person, and (2) is not of
legitimate concern to the public.
50
e Model Rules discuss redaction at WAC 44-14-04004(b)(i).
51
ere is no general “privacy” exemption. See WAC 44-14-06002(2).
52
Hearst v. Hoppe, 90 Wn.2d 123, 135-36 (1978) (adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D, at 383 (1977)).
53
Hearst, 90 Wn.2d at 136.
30Public Records Act
Both the “oensiveness” and “legitimate concern” elements must be met before information may
be redacted from a record.
e Washington courts have applied this rule on several occasions. In one case the court held that
“under Washington’s public records act, the names of police ocers, without simultaneous release
of other identifying information such as home addresses, residential telephone numbers, and
social security numbers cannot be considered “highly oensive.” . . . ”
54
Additionally, a legitimate
public concern existed because “. . . police ocers are public employees, paid with public tax dol-
lars. ey are granted a great deal of power, authority, and discretion in the performance of their
duties.”
55
In 2005 the court of appeals provided a wide-ranging analysis of the right to privacy in regard
to public employee personnel records when it examined disclosure issues involving teachers and
records of allegations of misconduct of a sexual nature.
56
In another appeals case regarding employee identication numbers, the appeals court held that
the “. . . release of employees’ identication numbers would be highly oensive, because disclosure
could lead to public scrutiny of individuals concerning information unrelated to any governmental
operation and impermissible invasions of privacy. . . .”
57
However, the release of employee names
would not be similarly oensive or lead to such invasions of privacy; rather, disclosure of employ-
ee names would “allow public scrutiny of government.”
58
In general, performance evaluations of public employees that do not contain particular incidents
of misconduct are presumed to be highly oensive and of small public concern.
59
However, this
does not apply to the position of city manager, because the “. . . performance of the City Manager’s
job is a legitimate subject of public interest . . . [he or she] . . . cannot reasonably expect that evalu-
ations of the performance of his or her public duties will not be subject to public disclosure.”
60
erefore, while the courts generally view non-particularized evaluations as highly oensive,
there is an overriding legitimate public concern in the case of city managers.
Question: Are public employee time sheets (time cards) public records which must be disclosed?
Answer: Yes, but any personal information such as social security numbers, addresses, or phone
numbers should be deleted before release.
61
54
King County v. Sheehan, 114 Wn. App. 325, 346 (2002).
55
Id. at 347.
56
Bellevue John Does 1-11 v. Bellevue School District #405, 129 Wn. App. 832.
57
Tacoma Pub. Library v. Woessner, 90 Wn. App. 205, 221-22 (1998) (emphasis added).
58
Id.
59
Dawson, 120 Wn.2d at 797; accord Spokane Research & Defense Fund v. City of Spokane, 99 Wn. App. 452, 456 (2000).
60
Spokane Research & Defense Fund, 99 Wn. App. at 457.
61
See RCW 42.56.230(3) and 42.56.250(3); Woessner, 90 Wn. App. at 224 (holding that it was permissible to redact em-
ployee identication numbers from a report but employee names should not have been redacted).
31Public Records Act
Question: Are the salaries of local government employees a public record which must be disclosed?
Answer: Yes, there is no exemption which applies to such information. The public has a right to know
how its monies are spent.
62
Data regarding tax deductions or other voluntary deductions should be
deleted before disclosure.
Comment: is provision is not a general privacy exemption. e private information protected
under RCW 42.56.050 is limited to “the right to privacy in certain public records” and the provi-
sion does not “create any right of privacy beyond those rights that are specied in this chapter
[the Public Records Act] as express exemptions.”
2. Redacting Information, Disclosure of Which Would Violate a Vital Government Interest
e term “vital government interest” is not dened in the Public Records Act. A helpful discus-
sion of that term is contained in a 1976 attorney general letter opinion,
63
which opined that the
descriptive term “vital” gives a more restrictive meaning to the phrase than if the legislature had
used the term “important.”
A similar term “vital government functions” is used in RCW 42.56.540, and it may be useful by
analogy. at statute authorizes a superior court to prohibit disclosure of public records if the
court nds
“. . . that such examination would clearly not be in the public interest and would substan-
tially and irreparably damage any person, or would substantially and irreparably damage
vital government functions.”
Comment: A local agency may be exposed to liability for violating an individual’s privacy rights
if it makes the wrong determination about whether private information should be redacted. As a
precaution, an agency should contact the individual who is the subject of the records request. is
notication will provide an opportunity for that individual to seek a court order prohibiting the
disclosure.
Redacting Information in Records Made Available to the Public
When a public record is not exempt under the specic provisions in the Public Records Act, a lo-
cal agency must still examine the document to see if any portions are exempt or prohibited from
disclosure.
ough there is no general privacy exemption, a few specic exemptions incorporate privacy
as one of the elements, such as personal information in employee les.
64
If some information is
clearly exempt or prohibited from disclosure, that information must be redacted from the record.
62
See AGO 1973 No. 4. For a discussion of an opposing view, see pp. 12-8 through 12-10 in the article by Kyle J. Crews
cited in Appendix A.
63
AGLO 1976 No. 47, at p. 6.
64
See WAC 44-14-06002(2) and AGO 1998 No. 12.
32Public Records Act
is redaction provision is similar to that provided in RCW 42.56.210(1) except that it applies to
all public documents. If a record contains both information which should be disclosed, and some
which is exempt from disclosure, a local government is generally required to delete the exempt
information from the record and disclose the rest. For example, if there is a request for records
concerning the hours worked during a certain month by a particular local government employee,
the local government should redact all exempt, personal information which might also be con-
tained in the records, such as the home phone number or home address, personal e-mail address,
personal wireless phone number, and social security number – the rest of the record must be
disclosed.
65
e redaction requirement applies to all but a few specically excepted public records. e state
supreme court has held that if another statute “(1) does not conict with the Act [Public Records
Act], and (2) either exempts or prohibits disclosure of specic records in their entirety, then (3)
the information may be withheld in its entirety notwithstanding the redaction requirement.”
66
As
an example, an agency may refuse to disclose employee medical records which it has on le, in
its entirety.
67
No redaction requirement applies here because of the specic statutory prohibition
provided for medical records.
65
RCW 42.56.250.
66
PAWS, 125 Wn.2d at 262.
67
See chapter 70.02 RCW.
33Public Records Act
Exemptions and Prohibitions Outside the Public
Records Act
In addition to the many exemptions provided in the Public Records Act, chapter 42.56 RCW, the
legislature has enacted numerous laws which prohibit or exempt the disclosure of other classes of
information. e prohibitions and exemptions relevant to local governments include:
• Addresses of victims of domestic violence. Chapter 40.24 RCW.
• Medical records. Chapter 70.02 RCW.
68
is exemption applies to medical records in an
employee’s personnel le,
69
and also to medical records prepared by ambulance EMTs,
who are health care providers under chapter 18.73 RCW.
• Information regarding organized crime. RCW 43.43.856.
• Trac accident reports. RCW 46.52.080.
70
• Industrial insurance (workers’ compensation) claim les and records. RCW 51.28.070.
• Information identifying child victims under eighteen who are victims of sexual assault.
RCW 10.97.130.
71
(is is similar to the RCW 42.56.240(5) exemption.)
• Tax return records and other tax information. RCW 82.32.330.
72
Note, however, that
RCW84.40.020 provides that property tax assessments and all supporting documents are
specically open to public inspection during the regular oce hours of the county asses-
sor’s oce.
• Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Chapter 19.108 RCW and RCW 4.24.601.
• Records obtained and reports produced pursuant to the state reworks law. Chapter 70.77
RCW (also see RCW 42.56.460).
68
See Model Rules WAC 44-14-06002(1).
69
“It is the public policy of this state that a patient’s interest in the proper use and disclosure of the patient’s health care
information survives even when the information is held by persons other than health care providers.” RCW 70.02.005(4). In Se-
attle Fire Fighters v. Hollister, 48 Wn. App. 129, review denied, 108 Wn.2d 1033 (1987), the court ordered disclosure of disability
records of retired re ghters and police ocers, but the case was decided prior to passage of chapter 70.02 RCW. Medical records
which are part of the disability les are probably prohibited from disclosure.
70
e trac accident reports exempted by this statute are primarily those prepared by drivers or passengers in the ve-
hicles - see RCW 46.52.030. Trac accident reports prepared by law enforcement ocers are generally not exempt. See Guillen v.
Pierce County, 144 Wn.2d 696 (2001); AGO 2001 No. 8; Pierce County v. Guillen, 537 U.S. 129 (2003); and “Pierce County v. Guil-
len: Practical Answers to Privileged Questions”, Gonzaga Law Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, p. 219.
71
Such information is not subject to release to the press or public without the permission of the child victim or the child’s
legal guardian. RCW 10.97.130.
72
is condentiality statute is incorporated into the public disclosure statutes by direct reference. See
RCW42.56.230(3).
34Public Records Act
• Driving license records of individuals which show trac
violations, convictions and accidents. RCW 46.52.120 and
RCW 46.52.130.
73
• Records concerning issuance of condential license plates,
driver’s license or identicard for undercover law enforce-
ment work. RCW 46.08.066.
74
(Incorporated into the PRA
in RCW 42.56.230(7)(c)).
• Court records are not subject to the Act (see City of Federal
Way v. Koenig); public access to court records is governed
by General Rule (GR) 22, GR 31 and GR 31.1
75
• Disclosure of names and addresses of individual vehicle
owners by the county auditor or agency authorized by the
state department of licensing must follow the requirements
of RCW 46.12.635.
• A private electronic authentication key in the possession of
a local agency is exempt from public inspection and copy-
ing. RCW 68.50.105.
• Autopsy and post mortem report and records may be in-
spected only by the personal representative of the decedent,
any family member, the attending physician, the prosecut-
ing attorney or law enforcement agencies having jurisdic-
tion, public health ocials, or the department of labor and
industries in certain cases. RCW 68.50.105.
• Records of a person conned in jail shall be held in con-
dence and shall be made available only to criminal justice
agencies, except that (1) law enforcement may use booking
photographs to assist them in conducting investigations of
crimes, and (2) photographs and information concerning
73
Records concerning trac violations and most minor trac oenses are
not covered by the disclosure prohibitions of chapter 10.97 RCW, the Criminal Records
Privacy Act. See RCW 10.97.030(1)(d), (e) (dening the term criminal history records
information).
74
ough this statute is not written as a disclosure exemption, the use of the
word “condential” in the statute would be meaningless if records concerning the issu-
ance of the license plates were available for public inspection and copying.
75
See Nast, 107 Wn.2d at 304.
5
CHAPTER FIVE
35Public Records Act
a person convicted of a sex oense as dened in RCW 9.94A.030 may be disseminated.
RCW 70.48.100.
• When a city or county sends a report concerning the termination of a police ocer to
the Criminal Justice Training Commission, the personnel action report in the commis-
sion’s les is prohibited from disclosure, but that same record when in the custody of the
jurisdiction that employed the ocer is not exempt or prohibited from disclosure. RCW
43.101.135 and 43.101.400(1).
• Counties administering the state’s public assistance programs are prohibited from disclos-
ing the contents of any records, les, papers and communications, except for purposes
directly connected with the administration of the program. RCW 74.04.060.
ere are also specic statutory exemptions and prohibitions regarding records available to, or
maintained by, law enforcement agencies. ese are discussed in Chapter 6. A more complete list-
ing of exemptions and prohibitions, other than the exemptions included in chapter 42.56 RCW, is
provided in Appendix C.
Question: Can a record become condential because a public employee promises someone that the
information will be kept condential?
Answer: No. Public employees and ocials do not have the authority to promise condentiality for
records unless a specic statute authorizes condentiality.
76
76
RCW 42.56.070(1); see also AGO 1983 No. 9; AGO 1986 No. 7; Van Buren v. Miller, 22 Wn. App. 836 (1979); Police
Guild v. Liquor Control Bd., 112 Wn.2d 30 (1989).
36Public Records Act
Criminal History, Juvenile, Sexual Offense, Jail and
Inmate, and Law Enforcement Records
Criminal History Records – Chapter 10.97 RCW
ere are numerous statutes governing disclosure of specic records maintained by or available
to law enforcement agencies. e Criminal Records Privacy Act, chapter 10.97 RCW, provides
the rules concerning disclosure of criminal history record information.
77
ese records include
computerized information of the type typically included in a “rap sheet.” Data concerning adult
convictions must be disclosed upon request, but data concerning arrests may be prohibited from
disclosure, depending upon the factors outlined in several sections of chapter 10.97 RCW.
78
Note
that the policy behind the Criminal Records Privacy Act is not at all like the policy statement in
the public disclosure statutes:
e legislature declares that it is the policy of the state of Washington to provide for the
completeness, accuracy, condentiality, and security of criminal history record informa-
tion and victim, witness, and complainant record information as dened in this chapter.
79
Juvenile Records – Chapter 13.50 RCW
Disclosure of data concerning juvenile oenses and dispositions, and juvenile data not related
to oenses, is governed by chapter 13.50 RCW.
80
Before release of any juvenile data, the statutes
should be reviewed. Note that parents or guardians do not have an automatic right to all of the
records concerning a juvenile who is in their charge.
81
Sexual Offender Information – Chapter 4.24 RCW
Special statutes governing disclosure of data concerning sexual oenders were enacted in 1990,
and amended several times since then.
82
Local governments are authorized to release relevant and
necessary information regarding sex oenders to the public when the release of the information
is necessary for public protection. A local government is protected from suit by a sexual oender
when such information is released, as long as the disclosure is done properly:
An elected public ocial, public employee, or public agency . . . is immune from civil li-
ability for damages for any discretionary decision to release relevant and necessary in-
77
RCW 10.97.030(1) denes criminal history record information in fairly broad terms, but the word “notations” in the
denition supports the view that the chapter deals only with the types of information collected in computerized criminal history
systems; see also Heidi Ann Horst, “Defensive Driving rough the Intersection of the Public Disclosure Act and the Criminal Re-
cords Act,” Legal Notes Information Bulletin No. 512 (2002) (a detailed analysis of the Criminal Records Privacy Act).
78
See Hudgens v. Renton, 49 Wn. App. 842 (1987); James Pidduck, “Condentiality of Police Personnel and Other Police
Records,” Legal Notes Information Bulletin No. 458 (1989).
79
RCW 10.97.010 (emphasis added).
80
See Deer v. DSHS, 122 Wn. App. 84 (2004).
81
See Id. and RCW 13.50.050 and 13.50.100.
82
See RCW 4.24.550 and 4.24.555.
37Public Records Act
formation, unless it is shown that the ocial, employee, or
agency acted with gross negligence or in bad faith.
83
Whenever a local government is considering release of such infor-
mation to the public, legal counsel should be consulted to make
sure that the disclosure is done properly.
84
Jail and Inmate Records – Chapter 70.48 RCW
RCW 70.48.100 governs disclosure of jail records and inmate re-
cords.
Law Enforcement Records
Records in a police department or sheri ’s oce that are not
prohibited from disclosure by the Criminal Records Privacy Act,
85
or records that are not covered by other specic disclosure exemp-
tion statutes, must be made available for inspection and copying.
ough there is an exemption at RCW 42.56.240(1) which protects
many police investigative records from disclosure, law enforcement
personnel les and administrative les are subject to the same
disclosure rules as apply to other local agencies. Personnel les are
discussed in more detail in chapter 7.
Issues relating to disclosure of law enforcement records are oen
complex and require careful analysis. Legal counsel should not
hesitate to consult colleagues and review relevant presentations
from WAPA or WSAMA training sessions.
Police and emergency responders have special provisions allowing
them to make visual and or audio recordings, in some circumstanc-
es without the approval of the person being recorded – see RCW
9.73.090. e video and sound recordings made by police ocers
are not exempted or prohibited from disclosure, but subsection (1)
(c) of the statute provides that they may not be disclosed “. . . until
nal disposition of any criminal or civil litigation which arises from
the event or events which were recorded.”
83
RCW 4.24.550(7).
84
See State v. Ward, 123 Wn.2d 488 (1994) (providing some guidance on appro-
priate disclosure).
85
See chapter 10.97 RCW.
6
CHAPTER SIX
38Public Records Act
Question: Can a city release to the local newspaper a weekly list providing the names of all those
arrested in the city during the past week, along with the reason for the arrest, and the actual charges
which have been led?
Answer: Yes, release of basic information concerning pending criminal matters is specically
allowed.
86
Question: Is the tape of a 911 telephone call a public record which must be disclosed upon request?
Answer: Yes. However, certain portions may be deleted if they fall under one of the specic
exemptions, such as the name of a child victim of assault. RCW 9.73.070 provides that 911 calls are
not covered by the general privacy rights which apply to other telephonic communications.
87
86
RCW 10.97.050(2).
87
See also AGO 1988 No. 11.
39Public Records Act
Personnel Records
ere are numerous disclosure issues concerning personnel records. A fair number of these issues
have been addressed by the state appellate courts. Newspapers and private individuals frequently
seek access to records of misconduct by local government employees or local government o-
cials, and the limits concerning disclosure of personnel records have been challenged on numer-
ous occasions. Local governments oen have a dicult time with these requests since failure to
disclose may be contested in the courts.
If a local government does decide to disclose certain personnel records, the subject employee may
feel that his or her privacy rights have been violated. Having decided that information will be
disclosed, it is good practice to notify the employee that there has been a request for disclosure of
information in the employee’s personnel le. e employee may then seek to block disclosure by
using the procedure provided in RCW42.56.540. ese are the types of dicult disclosure issues
which should be carefully reviewed with legal counsel.
Personnel les frequently contain information which is exempt or prohibited from disclosure,
these include:
• Applications for public employment;
88
• Residential addresses and telephone numbers; personal wireless phone numbers; personal
e-mail addresses; and social security numbers;
89
• Performance evaluations which do not discuss specic instances of misconduct;
90
• Medical information;
91
• Industrial insurance (workers’ compensation) claim les and records;
92
• Employee identication numbers;
93
and
• Federal tax withholding data.
94
Question: The local newspaper heard that one of the city shop employees was disciplined for repair-
ing his personal vehicle in the city shop. The newspaper has requested a copy of the investigation
report prepared by the employee’s supervisor, and a copy of the letter of discipline which was placed
in the employee’s personnel le. Should the records be disclosed?
Answer: Yes. The state supreme court has determined that the public has a legitimate interest in
records concerning acts of misconduct by city employees which have been investigated and sus-
88
RCW 42.56.250(2).
89
RCW 42.56.250(3).
90
Dawson, 120 Wn.2d at 797.
91
All employment entrance medical examination records and all medical examination records of current employees
should be collected and maintained in separate medical les. is is either required, or strongly encouraged, by federal regulations
promulgated pursuant to the EEOC and ADA.; see also chapter 70.02 RCW (regarding disclosure of medical records).
92
RCW 51.28.070.
93
Woessner, 90 Wn App. at 221.
94
RCW 42.56.230(4)(b).
40Public Records Act
tained.
95
Question: The local newspaper has requested a list of all city
employees terminated last year due to failing the random drug
testing program required by federal law for employees whose jobs
require a commercial driver’s license. Must a city turn over a list of
those employees?
Answer: Yes, if the city already has a record, in list form, contain-
ing the names of the terminated employees. If the city does not
have a record in list form it is not required to create a list. However,
the newspaper has the right to inspect records containing the
names of terminated employees and records concerning serious
on-the-job misconduct by city employees. Since drug usage by
employees in certain safety-sensitive positions is clearly prohib-
ited by city policy and federal law, and because the public has a
legitimate interest in serious on-the-job misconduct, the city may
release the names of the terminated employees. The city should
not release records of any individual drug test or drug treatment
obtained by a city employee, but must disclose records revealing
that an employee in a safety-sensitive position was terminated for
drug usage. A city can contact the terminated employees (and also
the city employees’ labor union) to notify them of the city’s intent
to disclose the information, and of their right to seek a court order
blocking disclosure.
Question: Must civil service eligibility lists be disclosed upon
request?
Answer: Yes, there is no statute which exempts eligibility lists from
disclosure.
95
See Dawson, 120 Wn.2d at 797 (specic instances of misconduct must be dis-
closed); Spokane Police Guild, 112 Wn.2d at 38-39.
7
CHAPTER SEVEN
41Public Records Act
Inspection by Local Government Officials and Employees
Inspection of personnel les by agency ocials or employees is not, strictly speaking, a public
disclosure issue. But, because of the recognized privacy rights concerning such information, ac-
cess to personnel les by agency ocials or employees should be scrutinized in a manner similar
to public disclosure law.
To the extent possible, personnel records should be maintained as private records. Access to
personnel les should be limited to only those local government employees who are needed to
maintain the les and those who have a legitimate need for access. A city council or a board of
county commissioners may adopt a policy specifying which ocials and employees have general
access to personnel les. In a small city or town, this would be the city clerk. In the personnel of-
ce of larger jurisdictions, this would be handled by a designated employee or human resources
department sta.
Councilmembers, commissioners, and other local government ocials do not have the right to
randomly access local government personnel les. Access should be limited to only those person-
nel records which they need in order to perform their ocial functions. Public ocials and other
local government employees have no special right to access employee personnel records if the
access is not necessary for the performance of their public duties.
Employee Inspection of Personnel File
Local government employees have the right to inspect their own personnel les at least once each
year, and they have the right to challenge the accuracy of information in their les.
96
96
RCW 49.12.240 and RCW 49.12.250.
42Public Records Act
Identity and Motivation of Persons Requesting Records
or Lists – Does it Matter?
e identity and motivation of a person seeking to obtain a copy of a public record is generally
not relevant to the determination of whether the record must be disclosed. is is true whether
the individual seeking the record is doing so for private purposes, or for “public” purposes.
RCW42.56.080 stresses this point:
. . . Agencies shall not distinguish among persons requesting records, and such persons
shall not be required to provide information as to the purpose for the request except
to establish whether inspection and copying would violate RCW 42.56.070(9) or other
statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specic information or records to certain
persons.
A 2002 Washington Court of Appeals decision has held that an agency is prohibited from inquir-
ing into the proposed use of the information requested for disclosure.
97
Except in the relatively
rare situations where a statute distinguishes among persons entitled to have access to records,
identity and motivation are not to be considered in the disclosure process.
Prisoner Injunction Provision – 2009 Legislation
A local government agency may le a court action in superior court to obtain a court order (in-
junction) prohibiting a prisoner from ling public records disclosure requests if the intent of the
disclosure requests is to harass or intimidate an agency or its employees. ere are clear standards
for the types of evidence the agency must present to obtain the injunction. If you encounter a
situation that you think might qualify, read the statute carefully.
98
More detail regarding the pris-
oner injunction bill can be read at: www.mrsc.org/focus/opengovadvisor/opengov0509.aspx.
Lists of Individuals Requested for Commercial Purposes
Private entities (e.g., commercial rms) may copy and inspect public records that are not exempt.
However, an agency is prohibited from disclosing lists of individuals if the requester intends to
make commercial use of the list. RCW 42.56.070(9) provides:
is chapter shall not be construed as giving authority to any agency . . . to give, sell or
provide access to lists of individuals requested for commercial purposes, and agencies .
. . shall not do so unless specically authorized or directed by law: PROVIDED, HOW-
EVER, at lists of applicants for professional licenses and of professional licensees shall
be made available to those professional associations or educational organizations recog-
nized by their professional licensing or examination board, upon payment of a reasonable
charge therefor (sic): PROVIDED FURTHER, at such recognition may be refused only
for a good cause pursuant to a hearing under . . . the Administrative Procedure Act.
97
Sheehan, 114 Wn. App. at 341 (holding that the Act prohibits inquiry into the purpose for the request; therefore, it also
prohibits balancing the intended use against interests in eective law enforcement).
98
RCW 42.56.565.
43Public Records Act
is provision prohibits disclosure “. . . if the requester has a com-
mercial purpose and intends to directly contact or personally aect
the individuals named in the list.”
99
RCW 42.56.070 does not prohibit access to raw data from which a
person could construct his own list of individuals for commercial
purposes.
100
In addition, this provision does not prohibit disclosure
of lists of businesses, corporations, or partnerships; the statute only
prohibits disclosure of lists of natural persons.
101
erefore, lists of
private companies which have commercial value for targeted adver-
tising must be disclosed upon request.
Question: Must the city disclose copies of all the current business
licenses issued by the city, if requested for commercial purposes?
(The business license forms contain, among other data, the names
and addresses of the businesses and individuals to whom the
licenses were issued.)
Answer: Yes. This is a request for the raw data. A requestor could
use the forms to compile a list of individuals and addresses, but
that does not prohibit disclosure of the raw data. A list of the
names and addresses of all the businesses licensed by the city
would also have to be disclosed. If the city maintains a separate list
of the names and addresses of all the individuals (natural persons)
to whom business licenses were issued, or all the individuals who
applied for business licenses, that list should not be disclosed.
Question: Must a city or county disclose a list of the companies
which have requested bid packets for a public works project? (The
requestor is an employee of another company considering bidding
on the project.)
99
AGO 1998 No. 2, 4. Also see WAC 44-14-06002(6).
100
AGO 1975 No. 15, 7.
101
See generally AGO 1975 No. 15 (analyzing access to lists of individuals under
RCW 42.56.070).
8
CHAPTER EIGHT
44Public Records Act
Answer: Yes. No exemption applies. Even though the requestor is asking for a list, and has a com-
mercial purpose, the request is not for a list of natural persons. The identity of the requestor is not
relevant.
Question: Must the city disclose the address list which the city uses for mailing the city newslet-
ter to city residents? (The list does not have the names of the occupants at the addresses; instead,
the mailing list just indicates “resident.”) Does it make any dierence if the request is from the local
chamber of commerce, a retail business, or a person campaigning for public oce?
Answer: The list must be disclosed to anyone requesting it. Motivation is not relevant, and
RCW42.56.070(9) does not apply, because the list is not a list of natural persons. If the list contained
the names of the residents, as well as their addresses, it could be provided to a political candidate
to be used for a campaign mailing, since an election campaign would not be considered to be a
commercial purpose.
102
The list with names cannot be provided to a retail business.
Question: Must the city disclose a list containing the names and addresses of all city residents
who are delinquent in their LID payments? (The person requesting the list is from a company which
provides home equity loans.)
Answer: Because RCW 42.17.260(9) exempts from disclosure a list containing the names of natural
persons when the list is requested for commercial purposes, the city should disclose the list, deleting
the names, and providing only the addresses.
Electrical Utility Records Sought by Police
If police are seeking evidence of criminal conduct in records of electrical use, they must provide
the utility with a written statement indicating that they suspect a specic person of a crime, and
that the records could help to determine whether this suspicion is true.
103
1 No shing expeditions
are allowed.
104
In a state supreme court case, the court held that though a private individual may request and
obtain a copy of the electric bill for a specic residence, a policeman seeking evidence of a
marijuana growing operation can only obtain that same record if he rst provides a written
statement concerning his reasonable belief that the information is relevant to the investigation of
a possible crime.
105
102
See Graham E. Johnson, “e Prohibition On Using Public Facilities To Assist Election Campaigns,” Legal Notes In-
formation Bulletin No. 458, p. 211 (1989).
103
RCW 42.56.335.
104
State v. Cole, 128 Wn.2d 262, 290 (1995).
105
Matter of Maxeld, 133 Wn.2d 332, 341-42 (1997).
45Public Records Act
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Data Requested for Commercial
or Non-commercial Purposes
106
Many cities and counties in Washington have spent considerable time and eort compiling GIS
data in order to facilitate planning and managing their jurisdictions. GIS data oen includes maps
of sewer and water lines, hazardous liquid transmission pipelines, natural gas pipelines (both
transmission and distribution lines), federal census data, property values, wetlands and other
critical areas, locations of power distribution lines, zoning data, and other geographically related
information.
Utilizing special computer soware, it is possible to make maps and compile information from
selected parts of the database. Because GIS data is costly to assemble and has commercial value
for those working in land development and related businesses, cities have required payment for
disclosure of GIS data, particularly when specialized skills and time are involved in manipulating
the data to provide the specic information of interest to the requestor.
Even if the requestor of GIS data intends to market the data to others for a prot, such motivation
is not statutorily recognized as a basis for denying disclosure. GIS data may be considered “re-
search data,” but it would not be exempt under RCW 42.56.270(1) because disclosure would not
result in any “public loss.”
Remember that some GIS data may be exempted or prohibited from disclosure by state law; for
example, maps or other information identifying the location of archaeological sites (to avoid
looting or depredation of such site).
107
106
See Laurie Flinn Connelly, “Update on Public Disclosure aer PAWS, GIS Data, Litigation Disclosure; Trade Secrets
Act,” Legal Notes Information Bulletin No. 489 (1995); Kyle J. Crews, “A Second Update on Public Disclosure, Public Bidding
Documents: E-Mail, GIS Data, Public Employment Records,” Legal Notes Information Bulletin No. 491 (1995), available at http://
www.mrsc.org/subjects/planning/gis/update2.aspx.
107
RCW 42.56.300.
46Public Records Act
Procedures for Making Records Available for Public
Inspection
Public Records Officer – RCW 42.56.580
“Each state and local government agency shall appoint and publicly identify a public records
ocer whose responsibility is to serve as a point of contact for members of the public in request-
ing disclosure of public records and to oversee the agency’s compliance with the public records
disclosure requirements of this chapter.”
108
Index of Records – RCW 42.56.070
Local governments are required to maintain and make available a current index of local govern-
ment records listed in RCW 42.56.070(3).
109
If maintaining an index would be unduly burden-
some, a local government must issue and publish a formal order specifying the reasons why and
the extent to which compliance would be unduly burdensome. All indexes maintained by local
government must be made available. Appendix A contains sample local government policies and
ordinances which require department heads to prepare and maintain an index of public records
maintained by their respective departments.
List of Exemption and Prohibition Statutes Not Contained in
Chapter 42.56 RCW
RCW 42.56.070(2) provides:
For informational purposes each agency shall publish and maintain a current list contain-
ing every law, other than those listed in this chapter [chapter 42.56 RCW] that the agency
believes exempts or prohibits disclosure of specic information or records of the agency.
An agency’s failure to list an exemption shall not aect the ecacy of any exemption.
Appendix C of this publication contains a list of the statutory exemptions and prohibitions not
contained in chapter 42.56 RCW. MRSC will keep updating this appendix on our website. If you
become aware of additions or corrections that should be made to the list, please notify one of
the sta attorneys at MRSC. Some of the exemptions and prohibitions on the list concern public
record information that may not be relevant for your jurisdiction. For instance, cities would not
normally have records regarding marriage license applications or adoption records.
Model Rule WAC 44-14-040 and the comments to that provision, WAC 44-14-
04001 through 44-14-04007, provide an excellent overview of the process for
responding to public records disclosure requests. ose provisions should be the
basis for sta training on the disclosure process.
108
Also see WAC 44-14-020 and comments.
109
WAC 44-14-030 and 44-14-03003 contain additional guidance.
47Public Records Act
Form of Request – RCW 42.56.100
Although the public disclosure statutes do not require that requests
for inspection or copying of records be in writing, local govern-
ments may adopt reasonable rules concerning disclosure requests.
RCW 42.56.100 specically provides that requests received by mail
for copies of identiable public records must be honored. Tel-
ephonic requests are not specically discussed in the statute, but
they should be processed in the same manner as any other type of
request for public documents.
110
Because an agency is given latitude
to devise public records request procedures, it is not unreasonable
to ask that a requesting party ll out a standard request form.
Protection of Public Records and Agency
Functions – RCW 42.56.100
Agencies are to adopt reasonable rules to assure:
• Full public access to public records;
• Protection of public records from damage or disorganiza-
tion; and
• Prevention of interference with essential functions of local
governments.
In addition to RCW 42.56.100, WAC 434-615-010 provides that
public records shall be “. . . delivered by outgoing ocials and
employees to their successors and shall be preserved, stored, trans-
ferred, destroyed, and otherwise managed . . .” as expressly provided
for by state law and regulation.
Question: Should a local government agency allow a member
of the public to take records out of the building, to review them
overnight, or to copy them somewhere else?
Answer: The potential for loss or damage to the records exists, and
for that reason all records should remain in the agency’s custody.
Members of the public must be allowed to examine records at the
110
See WAC 44-14-03006 for lengthy comments regarding issues involving the
form of a disclosure request.
9
CHAPTER NINE
48Public Records Act
agency, but they cannot take the actual records from the building. Adopting a policy on this matter
makes it easier for a local agency to inform members of the public of this quite reasonable rule.
Times for Inspection and Copying – RCW 42.56.090
Records must be available for inspection during a local agency’s regular business hours. If an
agency does not have regular business hours of at least thirty hours each week, hours for inspec-
tion and copying must be set between 9 a.m. and noon, and 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. during the week-
day, unless the person making the request agrees on a dierent time.
Charges for Copying – RCW 42.56.070(7), (8) and RCW 42.56.120
111
Local governments are not allowed to charge for the sta time spent in locating a public record,
or for making a record available for inspection.
112
A local government may, however, charge for
the actual costs connected with copying public records, including the sta time spent making the
copies.
113
A local government cannot charge more than een cents a page for photocopying
unless it has calculated its actual costs per page and determined that it is greater than een
cents.
114
Actual costs for postage and delivery can be included, as well as the cost of any
envelopes.
115
If a local government has to pay an outside source for making duplicates of records
such as photographs, blueprints or tape recordings, those costs must be charged to the requestor.
Note that there are statutes outside chapter 42.56 RCW that authorize local agencies to set fees for
providing information, or for photocopying specic public records. ese statutes are not part of
the public disclosure act and are not subject to the cost limitations imposed by RCW 42.56.120.
116
Here are some examples:
117
• RCW 46.52.085 authorizes cities, counties and state agencies to set a fee to cover the costs
of furnishing copies of trac accident reports. is statute allows a local government to
set a standard fee for providing copies of those reports, regardless of the number of pages
involved in any particular request. For instance, the Washington State Patrol charges a set
fee for copies of trac accident reports.
• RCW 10.97.100 authorizes police departments to collect reasonable fees for the dissemi-
nation of criminal history record information.
• RCW 3.62.060 and RCW 3.62.065 authorize municipal courts, and municipal depart-
ments of district courts, to charge specic fees for various services, including duplication
of part or all of the electronic tape or tapes of a court proceeding.
• RCW 36.18.040(1)(t) authorizes sheris to collect fees “[f]or the reproduction of audio,
visual, or photographic material, to include magnetic microlming, the actual cost includ-
ing personnel time.”
111
See WAC 44-14-070 and 44-14-07001 for a concise description of allowed charges.
112
RCW 42.56.120.
113
RCW 42.56.070(7)(b).
114
See RCW 42.56.070(8) and RCW 42.56.120.
115
RCW 42.56.070(7)(a).
116
RCW 42.56.130.
117
ese same examples are listed in WAC 44-14-07004.
49Public Records Act
• RCW 70.58.107 authorizes local registrars to collect fees for birth certicates and death
certicates.
• RCW 41.08.040 and RCW 41.12.040 require cities to provide free copies of their police
and re civil service rules.
Deposits and Responding in Installments – RCW 42.56.120
118
Legislation in 2005 now specically authorizes deposits and authorizes responding in install-
ments:
An agency may require a deposit in an amount not to exceed ten percent of the estimated
cost of providing copies for a request. If an agency makes a request available on a partial
or installment basis, the agency may charge for each part of the request as it is provided. If
an installment of a records request is not claimed or reviewed, the agency is not obligated
to fulll the balance of the request.
Question: How should a local government handle a request for a duplicate copy of a tape recording
of a council meeting or a public hearing?
Answer: Because there is a possibility that the original tape will be mishandled or lost, the local
government should not provide the original of the tape to the requestor and allow that individual
to make a copy. Instead, the local government should make the duplicate tape, or contract with a
reputable company to make a duplicate, and charge the requestor the actual cost of duplication.
Question: Should sales tax be charged and collected when a local government charges a fee for
making copies of records pursuant to a public records disclosure request?
Answer: No, such charges are exempt from the imposition of sales tax. See RCW82.12.02525.
119
Note that this sales tax exemption only applies to copies provided pursuant to a PRA disclosure
request, so the sales tax exemption does not apply to courts when they make copies pursuant to a
request for records under the common law – see footnote 2 of this publication for the legal citations
to cases that have determined that courts are not “agencies” under the PRA.
Prompt Responses Required – RCW 42.56.520
Within ve business days of receiving a request for a public record, a local agency must respond
by either:
• Providing for inspection and/or copying of the record;
118
See WAC 44-14-07006 for comments on this process.
119
Sales tax can be passed on to a records requestor when the copying is done by an outside vendor.
WAC44-14-07001(6).
50Public Records Act
• Providing an internet address and link on the agency’s website to the specic records
requested (if the individual does not have internet access, then the agency must provide
copies or allow the requestor to view the records using an agency computer);
• Acknowledging receipt of the request and providing a reasonable estimate of the time
necessary to respond; or
• Denying the request. If a request is denied, a written statement must accompany the de-
nial setting out the specic reasons therefore.
Note that although responses must be made within ve days, another statute requires local
governments to “provide for the fullest assistance to inquirers and the most timely possible action
on requests for information.”
120
Failure to provide a written response within the ve day period
can result in a civil award of statutory penalties.
121
Additional Time for Response – RCW 42.56.520
Additional time to respond to a request may be based upon the need to:
• Clarify the intent of the request;
• Locate and assemble the information requested;
• Notify third parties or agencies aected by the request; or
• Determine whether any of the information is exempt and whether a denial should be
made as to all, or part, of the request.
Question: If a local agency has copies of public records of another public agency in its possession,
does the local agency or the other agency make the disclosure decision?
Answer: The agency which possesses the records makes the disclosure decision by following the
regular disclosure statutes.
122
The other agency can be consulted and, if they object to a local agency’s
intent to disclose, can seek a court order blocking disclosure, as allowed by RCW 42.56.540.
Unclear Request for Information – RCW 42.56.520
If a local government receives an unclear request for records, it may seek clarication from the
requestor. If clarication is not received, the records request should be denied, with the reason
clearly stated.
123
Denial of Request for Records Disclosure – RCW 42.56.520
A written statement of the reasons for denying a request for disclosure must be provided to the
requestor, regardless of the reason for the denial. e denial:
120
RCW 42.56.100 (emphasis added).
121
See RCW 42.56.550(4); Doe I v. Washington State Patrol, 80 Wn. App. 296 (1996).
122
See Spokane Police Guild, 112 Wn.2d at 37-38.
123
See Bonamy v. City of Seattle, 92 Wn. App. 403, 411 (1998); Hangartner v. City of Seattle, 151 Wn.2d 439 (2004).
51Public Records Act
. . . shall include a statement of the specic exemption authorizing the withholding of the
record (or part) and a brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the record with-
held.
124
e state Supreme Court has stressed the need for all local governments to provide a clear
exemption log providing the following information: (1) a description of the document that
the local government is claiming to be exempt; (2) the date of the document; (3) the author or
sender of the document; (4) the recipient(s) of the document; (5) the number of pages claimed
as exempt; and (6) the specic exemption relied upon, with an explanation of how the exemption
applies to the withheld document.
125
In a 2000 court of appeals case, the court held that an agency does not need to provide requested
information within ve days, rather, it must respond to a request within ve days and provide a
reasonable time at which the requested information will be disclosed.
126
e court also held that
an agency is not required to provide the requested records in a piecemeal fashion; consequently,
the agency may wait until all the information is gathered before disclosing the requested record.
127
Local governments are required to adopt procedures for prompt review of decisions denying
inspection. Depending upon the size of a local government, review might be by a department
legal counsel. Because denials can result in litigation, a local government should make sure that
denial is based on a good faith interpretation of the statutes. A denial decision is nal at the end
of the second business day following the denial of inspection. Aer that date, an individual can
le a lawsuit in superior court to challenge the denial.
128
Local Government-Initiated Court Action to Prevent Disclosure –
RCW 42.56.540
A local government may take the oensive when dealing with a request for inspection. Under
RCW42.56.540, a local government may seek court protection to enjoin the release of a record
that is not exempt under the Act, if the local government can show that (1) the requested infor-
mation is “clearly not . . . in the public interest” and (2) that disclosure will “irreparably damage
any person, or would substantially and irreparably damage vital governmental functions.”
Like the right to privacy under RCW 42.56.050, this provision is not a general exemption to the
Act – the Act provides only for specic statutory exemptions. Instead, RCW 42.56.540 is a proce-
dural provision creating an injunctive remedy. erefore, whether a record should be protected
from inspection under RCW42.56.540 can only be argued in a superior court injunction pro-
ceeding; this reasoning cannot be used as the basis for an agency to deny disclosure outside of an
injunction proceeding.
124
RCW 42.56.210(3); see also RCW 42.56.520; PAWS, 125 Wn.2d at 257-61.
125
Rental Housing Ass’n of Puget Sound v. City of Des Moines, 165 Wn.2d 525 (2009).
126
Ockerman v. King County Dept. of Developmental & Envtl. Servs., 102 Wn. App. 212, 218 (2000).
127
Id. at 218-19. See also WAC 44-14-040(8).
128
One option suggested in the Model Rules is to consider alternative dispute resolution – see WAC 44-14-08003.
52Public Records Act
A local government may also notify the person who is named in the record or the person to
whom the record specically pertains, that a request for disclosure has been made and the local
government intends to disclose the record(s). e purpose of notication is to allow the named
individual the option of seeking a superior court injunction blocking disclosure.
129
An individual
has the option of ling in either their county of residence, or in the county where the record is
maintained.
Judicial Review of Local Agency Action – RCW 42.56.550
If a person is denied an opportunity to inspect and copy a public record held by a local govern-
ment, he or she may bring a motion in the superior court of the county where the record is main-
tained to require the local agency to explain, or show cause, why it has denied inspection. e
local agency has the burden of proving that the denial is in accordance with a statute which either
exempts or prohibits disclosure in whole or in part.
Also, if a person believes that a local government has not made a reasonable estimate of the time
needed to respond to a disclosure request, he or she may le a motion requiring a local govern-
ment to explain the reasonableness of its estimate.
When a court reviews a local government disclosure action:
• Review will be de novo, i.e., the court will review the facts anew and is not bound to ac-
cept any factual determination made by the agency, nor is the court required to give any
deference to the agency’s decision;
• e court is required to take into account the broad public policy favoring disclosure,
even though disclosure might cause inconvenience or embarrassment to public ocials or
others.
130
Penalties, Attorney’s Fees, and Costs If Local Government Loses in Court
– RCW 42.56.550(4)
e wording of RCW 42.56.550(4) is mandatory in regard to costs, including attorney fees (note
the phrase “shall be awarded” in the rst sentence below), but discretionary in regard to penalties.
Any person who prevails against an agency in any action in the courts seeking the right
to inspect or copy any public record or the right to receive a response to a public record
request within a reasonable amount of time shall be awarded all costs, including reason-
able attorney fees, incurred in connection with such legal action. In addition, it shall be
within the discretion of the court to award such person an amount not to exceed one hun-
dred dollars for each day that he or she was denied the right to inspect or copy said public
record.
129
See generally, Doe I, 80 Wn. App. at 301 (applying RCW 42.56.540).
130
Even extreme inconvenience does not excuse a city from the requirement of strict compliance with the PDA. Zink v.
City of Mesa, 140 Wn. App. 328 (2007).
53Public Records Act
Prior to July of 2011, monetary penalties were also mandatory. Because the statutory amend-
ment now enables judges to use their discretion in regard to penalties, local governments should
carefully document their eorts to comply with the requirements of the PRA. Conversely, do not
expect leniency from the court if there is evidence that a local government agency willfully tried
to delay or avoid disclosing records when no exemption or prohibition applied.
54Public Records Act
Retention and Destruction of Public Records
Although detailed requirements for retention and destruction are not covered in this publication,
general information about that process is provided below.
Local government agencies own the records in their possession, subject to the right of the public
to inspect and obtain copies of those records.
131
e public record retention and destruction pro-
cess is governed by chapter 40.14 RCW and several chapters in title 434 WAC, notably chapters
434-630, 464-635, 464-640, 464-660, and 464-662.
e State Archivist is the head of the Division of Archives and Records Management in the Oce
of the Secretary of State. e Archivist’s oce, along with a state records committee, is responsible
for developing retention schedules for all public records.
132
e Archivist’s oce publishes a local
government records retention schedule which can be obtained from its website at http://www.
secstate.wa.gov/archives/gs.aspx or by calling (360) 753-5485. Copies of the current retention
schedule may also be borrowed from the MRSC library our downloaded from the MRSC website
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/archives/gs.aspx.
In addition to the information provided by the State Archivist’s oce, counties and municipali-
ties will nd the following publication useful, “Deleting Criminal History Record Information
in Washington a.k.a. Expungements,” by Cheryl Carlson, Assistant City Attorney for the City of
Tacoma.
133
e Model Rules contain comments regarding records retention at WAC 44-14-03005.
Note: Under RCW 42.56.100, if a public records request is made at a time when the record exists
but is scheduled for destruction in the near future, the local government cannot destroy or erase
the record until the disclosure request is resolved.
Criminal penalties including nes and imprisonment will be assessed for the intentional
destruction of public records.
134
Preservation of Electronic Public Records
Progress brings complexity, and that is nowhere more evident than in the numerous issues
starting to arise in regard to electronic public records. Chapter 434-662 WAC deals with the
preservation of electronic public records, including such troubling issues as e-mails, maintaining
metadata,
135
and the application of the public records act to websites maintained by public
agencies. ose responsible for managing public records should read that chapter carefully and
131
RCW 40.14.020; also see WAC 44-14-03004 see also WAC 434-615-020.
132
RCW 40.14.050.
133
Legal Notes Information Bulletin No. 503 (1999).
134
See RCW 40.16.010; RCW 40.16.020.
135
See O’Neill v. Shoreline, 145 Wn. App. 913 (2008) for an example of how the loss of metadata can have serious
consequences.
55Public Records Act
discuss the details with the supervisor or person who manages the
computer systems for the jurisdiction.
Note that the administrative rules referenced above were adopted
by the state archivist through the Secretary of State’s oce. e
rules are mandatory, unlike the “Model Rules” draed by the attor-
ney general and published in chapter 44-14 WAC. e Model Rules
deal with the recommended procedures for public records dis-
closure, whether the records are paper, electronic, or in any other
form. See WAC 44-14-050 regarding the recommended procedures
for disclosing electronic records.
10
CHAPTER TEN
56Public Records Act
Appendix A: Recommended Resources
MRSC has numerous resources that can help state and local government agencies comply with
the Public Records Act (PRA). Below is a selection of resources available on our website:
• Public Records Act–Basic PRA overview with selected examples of local PRA policies and
procedures
• Electronic Records Policy Tool Kit– Series of webpages providing sample policy language
options and guidance for the various facets of electronic records retention, management, and
disclosure, including email, text, and social media.
• Public Records Act Court Decisions–Signicant state appellate court decisions concerning
PRA
• Law Enforcement Records Management and Disclosure– Series of webpages to help police
and sheri departments manage their records and comply with PRA and other statutes.
• PRA & Records Management Technology Guide – Downloadable guide oering key ques-
tions to consider before purchasing records management soware, an overview of soware
options, suggested guidelines for evaluating and selecting soware, and more.
• Recent blog posts about PRA – Articles written by MRSC sta and contributors about specic
aspects of the PRA, including new legislation and court decisions. Articles are listed in reverse
chronological order, with the most recent rst
57Public Records Act
Appendix B: Cross-Reference Guide for 2006
Recodification
Table 1: Chapter 42.17 RCW to Chapter 42.56 RCW
PDA
(until 7/1/06)
PRA
(aer 7/1/06)
WAC
Model Rules
42.17.020 42.56.010 44-14-01001
42.17.250 42.56.040 44-14-02001
42.17.251 42.56.030 44-14-01003
44-14-06002
42.17.253 New** 44-14-020
44-14-02002
42.17.255 42.56.050 44-14-06002(2)
42.17.258 42.56.060 44-14-01003
44-14-04003
42.17.260 42.56.070 44-14-03003
42.17.260(1) 42.56.070 44-14-010
44-14-06002
42.17.260(2) 42.56.070(2) 44-14-010
44-14-060
44-14-06001
42.17.260(7) 42.56.070(7) 44-14-07001
42.17.260(9) 42.56.070(9) 44-14-03006
44-14-06002(6)
42.17.270 42.56.080 44-14-01002
44-14-03006
44-14-04002
44-14-04003
44-14-04006
42.17.280 42.56.090 44-14-03002
44-14-04005
42.17.290 42.56.100 44-14-01002
44-14-04001
44-14-03004
44-14-04003
44-14-04006
42.17.295 42.56.110
58Public Records Act
PDA
(until 7/1/06)
PRA
(aer 7/1/06)
WAC
Model Rules
42.17.300 42.56.120 44-14-04005
44-14-070
44-14-07001
42.17.305 42.56.130
42.17.310 42.56.210 44-14-04004
44-14-06002
42.17.310(1)(a)
42.56.230
42.17.310(1)(b)
42.56.230
42.17.310(1)(c)
42.56.230
42.17.310(1)(d)
42.56.240
42.17.310(1)(e)
42.56.240
42.17.310(1)(f)
42.56.250
42.17.310(1)(g)
42.56.250
42.17.310(1)(h)
42.56.270
42.17.310(1)(i)
42.56.280 44-14-06002(4)
42.17.310(1)(j)
42.56.290 44-14-06002(3)
42.17.310(1)(k)
42.56.300
42.17.310(1)(l)
42.56.310
42.17.310(1)(m)
42.56.270
42.17.310(1)(n)
42.56.480
42.17.310(1)(o)
42.56.270
42.17.310(1)(p)
42.56.320
42.17.310(1)(q)
42.56.330
42.17.310(1)®
42.56.270
42.17.310(1)(s)
42.56.340
42.17.310(1)(t)
42.56.250
42.17.310(1)(u)
42.56.250
42.17.310(1)(v)
42.56.330
42.17.310(1)(w)
42.56.350
42.17.310(1)(x)
42.56.360
42.17.310(1)(y)
42.56.360
42.17.310(1)(z)
42.56.270
42.17.310(1)(aa)
42.56.270
42.17.310(1)(bb)
42.56.270
42.17.310(1)(cc)
42.56.370
42.17.310(1)(dd)
42.56.250
42.17.310(1)(ee)
42.56.250
59Public Records Act
PDA
(until 7/1/06)
PRA
(aer 7/1/06)
WAC
Model Rules
42.17.310(1)()
42.56.380
42.17.310(1)(gg)
42.56.270
42.17.310(1)(hh)
42.56.360
42.17.310(1)(ii)
42.56.480
42.17.310(1)(jj)
42.56.270
42.17.310(1)(kk)
42.56.390
42.17.310(1)(ll)
42.56.330
42.17.310(1)(mm)
42.56.330
42.17.310(1)(nn)
42.56.330
42.17.310(1)(oo)
42.56.360
42.17.310(1)(pp)
42.56.400
42.17.310(1)(qq)
42.56.320
42.17.310(1)(rr)
42.56.240
42.17.310(1)(ss)
42.56.230
42.17.310(1)(tt)
42.56.270
42.17.310(1)(uu)
42.56.410
42.17.310(1)(vv)
42.56.320
42.17.310(1)(ww)
42.56.420
42.17.310(1)(xx)
42.56.430
42.17.310(1)(yy)
42.56.430
42.17.310(1)(zz)
42.56.430
42.17.310(1)(aaa)
42.56.440
42.17.310(1)(bbb)
42.56.420
42.17.310(1)(ccc)
42.56.420
42.17.310(1)(ddd)
42.56.420
42.17.310(1)(eee)
42.56.400
42.17.310(1)(f)
42.56.270
42.17.310(1)(ggg)
42.56.330
42.17.310(1)(hhh)
42.56.270
42.17.310(1)(iii) New**
42.17.310(1)(jjj)
42.56.270++
42.17.310(1)(jjj)
42.56.380++
42.17.310(1)(kkk)
42.56.380
42.17.311 42.56.510
42.17.312 42.56.360
42.17.313 42.56.450
60Public Records Act
PDA
(until 7/1/06)
PRA
(aer 7/1/06)
WAC
Model Rules
41.17.314 42.56.330
42.17.315 42.56.320
42.16.316 42.56.360
42.17.317 42.56.380
42.17.318 42.56.240
42.17.319 42.56.270
42.17.31901 42.56.240
42.17.31902 42.56.360
42.17.31903 42.56.400
42.17.31904 42.56.400
42.17.31905 42.56.400
42.17.31906 42.56.460
42.17.31907 42.56.380
42.17.31908 42.56.400
42.17.31909 42.56.380
42.17.31910 42.56.360
42.17.31911 42.56.400
42.17.31912 42.56.330
42.17.31913 42.56.250
42.17.31914 42.56.420
42.17.31915 42.56.400
42.17.31916 42.56.400
42.17.31917 42.56.400
42.17.31918 42.56.380
42.17.31919 42.56.380
42.17.31920 42.56.480
42.17.31921 42.56.470
42.17.31922 New**
42.17.31923 New**
42.17.320 42.56.520 44-14-04003
44-14-08001
44-14-08004
42.17.325 42.56.530 44-14-08002
42.17.330 42.56.540 44-14-04003
44-14-08004(5)
61Public Records Act
PDA
(until 7/1/06)
PRA
(aer 7/1/06)
WAC
Model Rules
42.17.340 42.56.550 44-14-01003
44-14-04001
44-14-04003
44-14-08004
42.17.341 42.56.560
42.17.348 42.56.570
New
42.56.020
New
42.56.900
New
42.56.901
New
42.56.902
** Not yet recodied, see Laws of 2006, chapter 209 §§15 & 16
++ Laws of 2006 chapter 75, §2 and chapter 302, §11 both added a subsection (jjj) to 42.17.310(1)
62Public Records Act
Table 2: Chapter 42.56 RCW to Chapter 42.17 RCW
PRA
(aer 7/1/06)
PDA
(until 7/1/06)
WAC
Model Rules
42.56.010 42.17.010
42.56.020 New 44-14-00004
42.56.030 42.17.251 44-14-01003
44-14-06002
42.56.040 42.17.250 44-14-02001
42.56.050 42.17.255 44-14-06002(2)
42.56.060 42.17.258 44-14-01003
44-14-04003
42.56.070 42.17.260 44-14-03003
42.56.070(1) 42.17.260(1)
44-14-010
44-14-06002
42.56.070(2) 42.17.260(2)
44-14-010
44-14-060
44-14-06001
42.56.070(3) 42.17.260(3)
44-14-030
44-14-03003
42.56.070(4) 42.17.260(4)
44-14-030
44-14-03003
42.56.070(7) 42.17.260(7)
44-14-07001
42.56.070(9) 42.17.260(9)
44-14-03006
44-14-06002(6)
42.56.080 42.17.270 44-14-01002
44-14-03006
44-14-04004
44-14-04002
44-14-04003
44-14-04005
44-14-4006
42.56.090 42.17.280 44-14-03002
44-14-04005
42.56.100 42.17.290 44-14-01002
44-14-03004
44-14-04001
44-14-04003
44-14-04005
44-14-04006
42.56.110 42.17.295
63Public Records Act
PRA
(aer 7/1/06)
PDA
(until 7/1/06)
WAC
Model Rules
42.56.120 42.17.300 44-14-04005
44-14-070
44-14-07001
42.56.130 42.17.305
42.56.210(1) 42.17.310(2) 44-14-04004
42.56.210(2) 42.17.310(3)
42.56.210(3) 42.17.310(4) 44-14-04004
44-14-06002
42.56.230 42.17.310(1)(a)
42.17.310(1)(b)
42.17.310(1)(c)
42.17.310(1)(ss)
42.56.240 42.17.310(1)d)
42.17.310(1)(e)
42.17.310(1)(rr)
42.17.318
42.17.31901
42.56.250 42.17.310(1)(f)
42.17.310(1)(t)
42.17.310(1)(u)
42.17.310(1)(dd)
42.17.310(1)(ee)
42.17.31913
42.56.260 42.17.310(1)(g)
42.56.270 42.17.310(1)(h)
42.17.310(1)(m)
42.17.310(1)(o)
42.17.310(1)(r)
42.17.310(1)(z)
42.17.310(1)(aa)
42.17.310(1)(bb)
42.17.310(1)(gg)
42.17.310(1)(jj)
42.17.310(1)(tt)
42.17.310(1)(f)
42.17.310(1)(hhh)
42.17.319
42.56.280 42.17.310(1)(i) 44-14-06002(4)
42.56.290 42.17.310(1)(j) 44-14-06002(3)
42.56.300 42.17.310(1)(k)
64Public Records Act
PRA
(aer 7/1/06)
PDA
(until 7/1/06)
WAC
Model Rules
42.56.310 42.17.310(1)(l)
42.56.320 42.17.310(1)(p)
42.17.310(1)(qq)
42.17.310(1)(vv)
42.17.315
42.56.330 42.17.310(1)(q)
42.17.310(1)(v)
42.17.310(1)(ll)
42.17.310(1)(mm)
42.17.310(1)(nn)
42.17.310(1)(ggg)
42.17.314
42.17.31912
42.56.340 42.17.310(1)(s)
42.56.350 42.17.310(1)(w)
42.56.360 42.17.310(1)(x)
42.17.310(1)(y)
42.17.310(1)(hh)
42.17.310(1)(oo)
42.17.312
42.17.316
42.17.31902
42.17.31910
42.56.370 42.17.310(1)(cc)
42.56.380 42.17.310(1)()
42.17.317
42.17.31907
42.17.31909
42.17.31918
42.17.31919
42.56.390 42.17.310(1)(kk)
65Public Records Act
PRA
(aer 7/1/06)
PDA
(until 7/1/06)
WAC
Model Rules
42.56.400 42.17.310(1)(pp)
42.17.310(1)(eee)
42.17.31903
42.17.31904
42.17.31905
42.17.31908
42.17.31911
42.17.31915
42.17.31916
42.17.31917
42.56.410 42.17.310(1)(uu)
42.56.420 42.17.310(1)(ww);
42.17.310(1)(bbb);
42.17.310(1)(ccc);
42.17.310(1)(ddd);
42.17.31914
42.56.430 42.17.310(1)(xx)
42.17.310(1)(yy)
42.17.310(1)(zz)
42.56.440 42.17.310(1)(aaa)
42.17.313
42.56.460 42.17.31906
42.56.470 42.17.31921
42.56.480 42.17.310(1)(n)
42.17.310(1)(ii)
42.17.31920
42.56.510 42.17.311
42.56.520 42.17.320 44-14-04003
44-14-08001
44-14-08004
42.56.530 42.17.325
42.56.540 42.17.330 44-14-04003
44-14-08004(5)
42.56.550 42.17.340 44-14-01003
44-14-04001
44-14-04003
44-14-08004
42.56.560 42.17.341
42.56.570 42.17.348
42.56.900 New
66Public Records Act
PRA
(aer 7/1/06)
PDA
(until 7/1/06)
WAC
Model Rules
42.56.901 42.17.963
42.56.902 New
Laws of 2006 amending sections
Chapters and (section amended):
8, §210 (.400) & §112 (.360);
84, §17 (.400); 86 §1 (.300); 171, §8 (.270); 183, §37 (.270);
209, §7 (.270) & §8 (.330); 284, §17 (400); 302, §12 (.270); 330, §26 (.380); 338, §5 (.270); 341, §6
(.270); 369, §2 (.270)
Laws of 2006 adding new sections
Chapter 25 §3;
Chapter 209, §§15 & 16 (recodifying 42.17.253; 42.17.310(1) (iii); 42.17.31922; & 42.17.31923)
67Public Records Act
Appendix C: Exemption and Prohibition Statutes Not
Listed in Chapter 42.56 RCW
RCW 42.56.070(2) requires an agency to:
publish and maintain a current list containing every law, other than those listed in the
PRA, that the agency believes exempts or prohibits disclosure of specic information or
records of the agency. An agency’s failure to list an exemption shall not aect the ecacy
of any exemption.
e following list provides exemptions and prohibition statutes not listed in the PRA.
Washington State Statutes
See the Attorney General’s Sunshine Committee webpage for the most up-to-date list of public
disclosure exemptions. It is created annually by the Code Reviser’s Oce.
Selected Federal Condentiality Statutes and Rules
MRSC will periodically update this list. e date of the last update is reected in the cover.
18 USC § 2721 - 2725 Driver and License Plate Information
18 USC § 923(g); Public
Law 112-55, div. B, title II,
125 STAT. 609
Firearms trace data provided to local law enforcement by the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
20 USC § 1232g Family Education Rights and Privacy Act
23 USC § 409 Evidence of certain accident reports
42 USC § 290dd-2 Condentiality of Substance Abuse Records
42 USC § 405(c)(2)(C)(viii)
(I)
Limits on Use and Disclosure of Social Security Numbers.
42 USC § 654(26) State Plans for Child Support
42 USC § 671(a)(8) State Plans for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance
42 USC § 1396a(7) State Plans for Medical Assistance
42 USC § 5106a
Grants to States for Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention and
Treatment Programs
7 CFR § 272.1(c) Food Stamp Applicants and Recipients
34 CFR § 361.38 State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Programs
68Public Records Act
42 CFR § Part 2 (2.1 - 2.67) Condentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records
42 CFR § 431.300 - 307
Safeguarding Information on Applicants and Recipients of
Medical Assistance
42 CFR § 483.420
Client Protections for Intermediate Care Facilities for Individuals
with Intellectual Disabilities
45 CFR § 160-164 HIPAA Privacy Rule
