Greetings,

I would like to start off my e-newsletter addressing an issue my office has heard a lot about this week, the Legislative Public Records Act. I would like to thank every person who has been sharing their concerns about Senate Bill 6617.

 I voted for this bill because it expands transparency well beyond what has historically been required of the Legislature. The bill passed Feb. 23 on a bipartisan vote of 41-7 in the Senate and 83-14 in the House. Contrary to new reports you may have heard, the bill significantly increases public accountability. I know many of you have expressed concerns about the process and feel the Legislature rushed this bill through; I respect and share those concerns. As I hope you know from my record, I hold strong beliefs in transparency and open government.

 That said, this bill has been widely misreported and misunderstood, so I appreciate this opportunity to clarify the importance and intent of this bill.

I was very disappointed that the bill came forward too late to go through the regular committee process in this busy short session. Bills are always better when they have been vetted with a full review. However, sometimes it is better to do something than nothing at all. The need for the bill arose from a court ruling that was made after the legislative session was in progress and we were past the deadline when the bill could have been heard through the normal committee process. 

Now, about that court ruling. About a year ago, various media organizations sued the Legislature, arguing that the state’s Public Records Act of 1972 — not to be confused with the Legislative Public Records Act, which is the separate legislation that passed last week — should be interpreted to include the Legislature. In response, a Thurston County superior court judge ruled that although the Legislature is not an agency, individual legislators’ offices should be viewed as agencies and should be subject to the same public disclosure requirements of the Public Records Act. 

The Legislature maintains that the legislative branch is an independent branch of government — the three separate and co-equal branches of government are the Executive, the Judiciary and the Legislature — and not an “agency” of the Executive branch.  That is why the Judicial branch is guided by its own rules, and why the Legislative branch adopted its own standards about what documents should be public. 

This is not a perfect bill but it does clarify many issues. It also dramatically expands disclosure by adding substantial new categories of records, including legislators’ legislative calendars and letters and emails from lobbyists. To protect the confidentiality of constituent information, the bill exempts emails and messages from constituents from public disclosure.  The information I receive from constituents of the 33rd district is sometimes confidential and personal, and I believe it would be a breach of trust to expose constituents to that kind of public disclosure.

SB 6617 provides for public disclosure of emails, letters and documents from lobbyists.  It also provides for public disclosure of all meetings, proposed legislation, amendments and other legislative documents. The bill protects certain categories of documents involving constituents. I think that the exceptions are balanced and appropriate for maintaining confidentiality and trust of voters and residents who want to contact their elected legislators.  I receive tens of thousands of e-mails each session from constituents and citizens from across the state.  Many are form emails from advocacy groups, such as the AARP, Mom’s Rising, and both the NRA and Citizens for Gun Responsibility. 

Sometimes emails are about specific problems in need of legislative solutions. When the Seattle Times reported on alarming practices at Swedish Hospital, I followed up by asking our state agencies, including the Department of Health, Department of Labor & Industries, and the Health Care Authority, asking them to review their records to see if any of our state’s clients had suffered similar problems after being treated at Swedish Hospital’s Cherry Hill Neurosurgery Center.  Once I released those records requests, I received dozens of e-mails from former patients and doctors and nurses sharing information about practices at their hospitals and others. They wanted to shine a light on problems that needed to be addressed but, except for one doctor, they did not permit me to share their names or information. Many were concerned about professional retaliation or retribution. I served as their advocate with state agencies to try to address the problems identified without compromising their confidentiality.

One of the outcomes of that situation was a bill I introduced and which passed in the Senate this year, SB 5998.  This bill provides whistleblower protection for health care providers at our state’s hospitals. That means when they complain or report a public health or quality of care problem, retaliation will not be allowed, and the hospital cannot punish them for reporting the problem. That bill would not have had support and success if not for those emails I received last year. 

If constituents knew that their correspondence could be made public, I believe it would have a significant chilling effect on their First Amendment right to petition their government for redress of grievances.  In contrast, disclosing lobbyist correspondence is a substantial move toward important transparency.

Please know that the Legislature will create a new public records office and has funded several positions in the supplemental budget to staff it. I view these changes as a significant step toward more transparency. I encourage you to read the intent section on pages 1-2 of the bill, which is I think a very thoughtful explanation of why it is appropriate to have a statute explicitly crafted for the legislative branch.

The Senate Facilities & Operations Committee will administer this process of public disclosure, and I am confident it will handle appeals quickly and efficiently. These meetings are also open to the public. Similar to the practices of the Ethics Board, under SB 6617 any personal allegations of misconduct will result in a final report, once all of the facts have been uncovered. However, while a complaint is being investigated, I believe it is appropriate not to make unsubstantiated complaints subject to public disclosure.  

I am encouraged by your support of open and transparent government, as I am a strong believer in both. If you have specific concerns about this bill or public disclosure policies that you would like share, please do not hesitate to contact me at karen.keiser@leg.wa.gov or 360-786-7664.

Always,

Sen. Karen Keiser