- Products
- Solutions
- Company
- Resources
By Alisa Fetic
Public record requests are a common practice in the United States. Journalists, politicians, and concerned citizens alike use them as a tool to obtain information they're legally entitled to access under official laws. But despite their importance, public record requests aren't always handled the way they should be. There are countless high-profile examples of large organizations and groups failing to properly produce records, for reasons ranging from logistical issues to outright dereliction of responsibility. In this article, we'll go over two of these cases and explain what make them such important learning opportunities to those who fall under the provisions of laws like the PRA.
UW Public Records Office
The University of Washington's football team decided to partner with rapid antigen company Quidel to handle player testing protocols at the onset of COVID-19. It, like many other schools in the country, was doing everything it could to salvage the 2020 season, and hoped that offering these ultra-rapid - but notably less accurate - tests would be enough to keep the team safe.
The Seattle Times and other local media outlets quickly jumped on this story, filing a public records request to the UW for copies of emails about the Quidel deal.
The school responded by saying it could not find any relevant records, not once, but twice, after being asked to search again. Further investigation by the Seattle Times with Oregon State University revealed that there were indeed emails regarding the matter - many of which painted an ugly picture of the school's decision-making process.
The UW was forced to admit it had failed to properly search for the emails, and local media outlets sued them for violating the Public Record Act. It blamed the fact that the school was incredibly short on resources and only had eight employees to respond to requests for information.
This incident isn't just noteworthy for the $97,000 settlement it cost the University of Washington. It also resulted in an intangible loss, that being the damage the school's reputation suffered after all was set and done.
West v City of Tacoma (1/28/2020)
In 2013, the city of Tacoma purchased a new surveillance system known as 'Stingray' from the FBI. Per the Bureau's request, the local government signed an NDA prohibiting it from sharing any information about the technology or its existence. Shortly thereafter, a public record request was made by resident Arthur West seeking records related to the acquisition, which the city promptly responded to.
But the documents provided by the city were heavily redacted, specifically with regards to the make, model and prices of certain equipment. The city fully cited the specific intelligence information exemption in RCW 42.56.240(1) as justification for redacting the sensitive data.
West soon after appealed the city's decision, claiming that their search for documents was inadequate and hence, withholding information on the matter was illegal.
After deliberation, the court reasoned that while the city was correct to withhold certain documents pertaining to 'Stingray', they had also failed to turn over emails about the technology, including responses to a reporter's questions. This was deemed responsive to West's request and therefore constituted withholding of public records - something strictly prohibited by the PRA.
These two cases demonstrate just how easy it is to run afoul of public records law, even when specifically trying to abide by it. In both cases, the courts found that despite good intentions, there had been a violation of the law, and this was something that could have been easily avoided. This is why it's so important for those tasked with responding to public record requests to take their jobs seriously and make sure they are providing all of the relevant documents that have been requested - it's not just the law, but a matter of public trust.