A big donnybrook continues to unfold over attempts to reinforce and strengthen state public disclosure law. The Olympian reports:
Key Washington lawmakers say they are dropping language in a hotly contested public-disclosure bill that would have strengthened attorney-client privilege for government lawyers. Attorney General Rob McKenna, who had offered a definition of privilege that he considered a compromise between warring factions, said he is willing to wait another year. Even so, a strong lobbying effort is under way from local governments, which want the same privilege for government lawyers that private attorneys have always enjoyed. That privilege allows lawyers and clients to consult without being compelled to divulge their communications....Under a proposal from Sen. Jim Kastama, D-Puyallup, government lawyers would be allowed the same privilege as private lawyers, which the Coalition for Open Government contends is a way to sweep more government information into secrecy.
Olympian Executive Editor Vickie Kilgore is among those who think this could impede the public's ability to know important information about their school, city or county and state government agencies.
Other members of the coalition have said such privilege could be used to withhold such internal investigation reports as the one showing why lawyers for then-Attorney General Christine Gregoire failed to appeal a $17.8 million jury verdict in 2000.
More from the same Olympian story on "what's at stake:"
Senate Bill 5735 and House Bill 1758 await votes this week. They would change the state's Public Disclosure Act in several ways. They would: Prohibit agencies from rejecting records requests because they are overly broad; allow audits of agency document copying costs; require agencies to identify a records-disclosure contact for the public; limit copying costs to 15 cents per page; llow government to ask for a 10 percent deposit on copying fees; raise fines for improper cases of nondisclosure to a range between $5 and $500 per day....; set a one-year deadline for challenging a denial or slow response; require a model rule for disclosure for agencies by Feb. 1, 2006. The Attorney General's Office would draft it.One major difference remains between the Senate and House approaches: SB 5735 would adopt as law the language from a state Supreme Court decision on lawyer-client confidentiality for government lawyers. Records transmitted in confidence between public officials or employees for the purpose of rendering legal advice would not have to be disclosed. However, records would have to be released if they merely reflected communications at meetings in which a lawyer was present; giving a copy of records to legal counsel would not make those records exempt either.
More here in Sunday Olympian op-eds from AG McKenna, Olympian Exec. Ed. Kilgore, and State Auditor Brian Sonntag.
Sonntag writes:
Knock. Knock. "Who's there?" "The public.""The public who?"
"The public that shouldn't have to keep banging on government's doors, trying to get in."
....in 1972, the state's voters approved an initiative that made it very clear who's in charge of government:
"The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people ... 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. The people insist on remaining informed ..."
Fast-forward to 2005. The people are still insisting, and governments are still resisting.
The public's right to know in Washington is under constant, while often subtle, assault. Meetings sometimes aren't advertised or are held in secret. Records aren't disclosed for sometimes mind-boggling reasons. Court decisions largely continue to favor government, not the people who created it and hired its officials in the first place.
Why? I wish I knew.
Real estate negotiatons involving government? Government personnel matters? Some public sector security issues? Sure, I can see the need for some discretion there. But we should be very, ah, conservative about exceptions to open records and public disclosure laws. Anything that can strengthen that conservatism is a good idea.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at March 13, 2005 06:59 PM | Email ThisJust a thought.
Posted by: Jim in Clark County on March 13, 2005 07:20 PMHere-here. Well said, it seems that when "public officials" pass thru the membrane that separates them from "civilians" they put on a mantle of arrogance. -Spin
Posted by: SpinDaddy on March 14, 2005 06:19 AMYes, the decision has been made. The new gubernatorial election will be held the first Tuesday in November of 2008.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 14, 2005 09:25 AMUnkl - you need to catch up on current events, the decision has not yet been made. Wishful thinking and repeating it over and over will not make it true.
Posted by: Fred on March 14, 2005 09:36 AMYou are and always will be a felthching troll!!!
Posted by: James Jones on March 14, 2005 10:19 AMAs far as brainless lucy is concerned, sorry, but you can't use the Patriot Act to explain the ills of society anymore than you can use "institutional racism" or any other liberal buzz words. Most of us here at SP are a little more intelligent and if you want to get in the game you're going to have to come up with arguments that are a little more intelligent.
Posted by: Mark Griswold on March 14, 2005 10:31 AMTake this as you will, but there were no politics involved in my initial comment. Just simple math. Democrat, Republican, Libertarian; no diff to me. I would have made the same comment.
Two things struck me about that particular statement. I initially only read the blurb posted here, thinking it was a typo I went to the original story and the same error was there. So what we have is someone writing a story and making an obvious error, then an editor reading this story and not catching the error and allowing the author the opportunity to correct it so that I wouldn't have gotten the first comment that only highlighted the error.
So, we have a State Auditor that cannot do simple math and a newspaper editor that cannot edit very well. That is just sad. Speaks tons about the way that we educate people in this country.
It is that education system that forces me to review my childrens homework and amazes me that what I think they should know at this point they don't. I know some of that is my issue to deal with (and my wife and I do), but it is also the responsibility of the schools.
Sorry, Matt for taking this in a different direction. You don't want to get me going on the state of the educational system in this country.
Jim
Posted by: Jim in Clark County on March 14, 2005 11:23 AMPS I think it was only "the rich" that were in the 90% bracket, admittedly I have not researched it, just my guess.
Posted by: Fred on March 14, 2005 12:30 PMNot to burst your bubble,but on a different vein, Sen. Bird is a trojan horse. Everyone knows this. Think that one through.
Posted by: headless lucy on March 14, 2005 01:03 PMFred responds, “how about JFK, he cut taxes from the 90% (presumably meaning marginal rate). As I recall the 60s were quite prosperous,” to which Headless replies, “Under Kennedy's plan the rich only got the tax credit if they invested the money. This is not the case with Bush's tax cut. Sorry, try again.”
I can see why she calls herself headless.
You really got us there Headless.
Speaking of not answering the question, you didn't answer where you think "rich people" put their money if they don't invest it. If there isn't a reasonable answer (not some small minority that you may be able to find) then the distinction you say there is between Kennedy and Bush is basically zero.
Posted by: Fred on March 14, 2005 02:30 PMthis attempt to deny access to public records is very serious and should concern everyone across the political spectrum. There are some legitimate concerns by private equity managers about FOIA requests, but that is a tiny, tiny part of the equation. Government has become so powerful that only spotlights onto misconduct have any effect. Taking that capability away while not taking the ability of government to abuse its considerable power (CAO? Eminent Domain? Elections? DSHS?) would be a gigantic step towards serfdom for those of us on the outside.
This legislature is very hurried in its actions so far. There is an almost palpable sense of concern regarding the Rossi/Gregoire situation on the part of the Dems. Some of the results of that concern clearly are terrible bills (I200 set aside, "emergency" bills) that must be pushed through rapidly for fear of not having a pliable governor in 2006.
Posted by: iconoclast on March 14, 2005 02:46 PMWho do you think builds these expensive spreads? Who do you think cleans and maintains these spreads. I'm sure these people are very glad that those "rich people" are spending their money to provide them jobs. These people have jobs to support their families and they also pay taxes.
Posted by: Fred on March 14, 2005 03:03 PMBut we're neither hoses, birds, or those who wait for the "trickle" from on high.
Since that description of improving the conditions of the poor comes from "progressives", not Republicans, no wonder it is inappropriate. If you must have a metaphor, the proper one is that a rising tide lifts all boats.
Investing in high-priced spreads. Sounds like a great way to make a small fortune....out of a large one. Any other investment advice you care to offer?
Posted by: iconoclast on March 14, 2005 03:15 PMNobel is just another example of the "filthy rich" that are greedy and spit on the common gutter snipe. Ooops, I guess that doesn't fit.
Posted by: Fred on March 15, 2005 09:07 AMWhile the totalitarians are in charge, public disclosure will always be a nebulus concept.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on March 15, 2005 12:11 PMDo you feel the Nobel prizes are socialist programs? or has the subject changed? Where on earth are you coming from with this?
Posted by: Fred on March 15, 2005 02:19 PMI think that s-choir was making a wierd attempt to reduce the stature of Friedman vis a vis Chomsky by denigrating the validation of Friedman's stature in economics brought by the Nobel Prize.
It was a very strange troll, but several people bit it seems. I guess it is one more example of the random walk apparent in online debates.
Posted by: iconoclast on March 15, 2005 04:01 PM