Posted on 03/08/2005 7:43:33 AM PST by truth49
Washington's constitution and voter approved public records law clearly indicate that the people must be allowed to have access to information concerning the activities of government: the people do not yield authority to state officials to determine "what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know."
All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights. - Article 1, Section 1 Washington State Constitution
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, 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 so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created. The public records subdivision of this chapter shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy. - RCW 42.17.251
Despite this clear directive, some legislators are now poised to essentially gut the state's public records law by creating an expansive new exemption to records disclosure in the form of a broad-based attorney-client privilege. Considering just who the actual client of the government attorney's is, the people, any denial of public records on the grounds of government attorney-client privilege must be severely restricted—not broad-based.
A bill to address this problem, SB 5735, has been introduced by Attorney General (AG) Rob McKenna. Unfortunately, even in its original form, SB 5735 did not go far enough to ensure the use of an attorney-client privilege exemption was narrowly defined. Action by a Senate committee last week expanded the attorney-client privilege even further.
Even though an amendment offered by Sen. Adam Kline (D-Seattle) to address this problem was not adopted in committee, it could still be considered on the full floor of the Senate. Sen. Kline's amendment would define the attorney-client privilege exemption to exist only if the public records requested related to something subject to an actual legal controversy (the agency was being sued or reasonably anticipated it would be sued for the activity in question).
The only time an attorney-client privilege exemption for government attorneys (who should be representing the interest of the people—not government) makes sense is if an agency is preparing for court and needs to plan legal strategy. Without such legal action, the advice of government attorneys is actually made on behalf of the public as a whole, meaning that the denial of records to the very individuals government attorneys are supposed to be representing is without merit.
Should the legislature not consider Sen. Kline's amendment and leave SB 5735 in its current form, defenders of the people's right to know may be left with little choice but to kill the bill and look to an initiative to restore the state's public records law to its original intent.
..is the denial of due process. Public records are part of "process" and their denial is unconstitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.