Letter to North Kitsap Herald
Editor, NK Herald:
Contrary to Dona Keating's Reader Sound-Off column (Herald, 7/23/05), the Attorney General is not investigating whether public records used in Kitsap County's off-the-record negotiations with the International Speedway Corporation (ISC) are exempt from disclosure under the public records law (RCW 42.17.310).
As has been widely reported (see 7/13/2005 Herald, for example), the AG is investigating whether the County attempted to conceal public records by turning them over to a private entity, the Kitsap Regional Economic Development Council (KREDC), which was acting in behalf of the ISC.
Willfully concealing a public record is a violation of RCW 40.16 and, in the case of public officials, is punishable by up to 10 years in prison, or up to five years in prison for other persons.
According to news accounts, the concealed records were provided to the KREDC by county staff and included road project maps, transportation studies and traffic statistics, information that is not exempt from disclosure under the public records law. KREDC Executive Director David Porter acknowledged as much, when he told the Herald that "The material they gave me wasn't sensitive ... But the fact that I was asking for it was."
Mr. Porter says he's fearful that "someone could see that he was making a certain request and file a Freedom of Information request to determine its contents," thereby tipping off his client's business intentions.
Mr. Porter's fears are ill founded. The public records law, RCW 42.17.270, specifies that persons requesting records "shall not be required to provide information as to the purpose for the request," thus Mr. Porter is free to request records in the name of the KREDC without divulging his client's identity or intentions.
But Mr. Porter's real problem is that he wants much more than just existing records. He wants public employees to assist in creating new records tailored to his client's interests (testimonials of support, maps, studies, market analyses, etc.), at public expense but without the public's knowledge. Thus the need for secrecy agreements and the hiding of public records.
The public needs to make it crystal clear to Mr. Porter, and the public officials and staff who've been taken in by his scam, that secrecy is antithetical to the public process and that public employees are not private servants.
Charlie Burrow
Contrary to Dona Keating's Reader Sound-Off column (Herald, 7/23/05), the Attorney General is not investigating whether public records used in Kitsap County's off-the-record negotiations with the International Speedway Corporation (ISC) are exempt from disclosure under the public records law (RCW 42.17.310).
As has been widely reported (see 7/13/2005 Herald, for example), the AG is investigating whether the County attempted to conceal public records by turning them over to a private entity, the Kitsap Regional Economic Development Council (KREDC), which was acting in behalf of the ISC.
Willfully concealing a public record is a violation of RCW 40.16 and, in the case of public officials, is punishable by up to 10 years in prison, or up to five years in prison for other persons.
According to news accounts, the concealed records were provided to the KREDC by county staff and included road project maps, transportation studies and traffic statistics, information that is not exempt from disclosure under the public records law. KREDC Executive Director David Porter acknowledged as much, when he told the Herald that "The material they gave me wasn't sensitive ... But the fact that I was asking for it was."
Mr. Porter says he's fearful that "someone could see that he was making a certain request and file a Freedom of Information request to determine its contents," thereby tipping off his client's business intentions.
Mr. Porter's fears are ill founded. The public records law, RCW 42.17.270, specifies that persons requesting records "shall not be required to provide information as to the purpose for the request," thus Mr. Porter is free to request records in the name of the KREDC without divulging his client's identity or intentions.
But Mr. Porter's real problem is that he wants much more than just existing records. He wants public employees to assist in creating new records tailored to his client's interests (testimonials of support, maps, studies, market analyses, etc.), at public expense but without the public's knowledge. Thus the need for secrecy agreements and the hiding of public records.
The public needs to make it crystal clear to Mr. Porter, and the public officials and staff who've been taken in by his scam, that secrecy is antithetical to the public process and that public employees are not private servants.
Charlie Burrow
posted by Charlie Burrow | 10:11 AM
2 Comments:
To me, it's interesting that the state agency with a mission that is similar to the KCEDC is covered by RCW 42.17.31 which states:
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of RCW 42.17.260 through 42.17.340, the following information supplied to the department of community, trade, and economic development is exempt from disclosure under this chapter:
(a) Financial and proprietary information collected from any person and provided to the department of community, trade, and economic development pursuant to RCW 43.330.050(8) and 43.330.080(4); and
(b) Financial or proprietary information collected from any person and provided to the department or the office of the governor in connection with the siting, recruitment, expansion, retention, or relocation of that person's business and until a siting decision is made, identifying information of any person supplying information under this section and the locations being considered for siting, relocation, or expansion of a business.
(2) Any work product developed by the department based on information as described in subsection (1)(a) of this section is not exempt from disclosure. [Emphasis added.]
It seems unlikely that a different rule would apply to county employees who act in response to KCEDC.
But, what is the law regarding work product based on subsection (1)(b)? Do the specific mention of (1)(a) work product and the silence about (1)(b) indicate that work product is exempt from disclosure if connected to a siting, recruitment, etc., decision? Or, is the law construed to mean that any work product based on any proprietary information provided to the department is not exempt from disclosure?
I wish I knew what makes the software occasionally edit the URL in the hyperlink. Clicking the link for the RCW section in my comment above takes you to a blank page.
The URL should be (if this one works after I try to correct the automatic change made by the software):
http://www.leg.wa.gov/rcw/index.cfm?fuseaction=section§ion=42.17.319
Nope, I can't get it to stay as "section[and]section." It changes the ampersand to the symbol for "section" and clips out the "sect" in the second "section"--even when I try to copy and paste it here. Any idea how to stop that?
Post a Comment
<< Home