carpenter-duncan-minor-pra-researchreport-final (2)

Government Transparency Policies in Washington State: A Local Perspective

RESEARCH REPORT

MARCH 10, 2016 PREPARED BY: MICHAEL CARPENTERMEGAN DUNCANLUCAS MINOR

Photo credit: http://pioneerinstitute.org/

The Evergreen State College | Master of Public Administration Program

Research Question“What are the most common factors currently

impacting local Public Records Officers’ ability to comply with Washington State’s Public Records Act?”

March 10, 2016

RESEARCH REPORT: Government Transparency Policies in Washington State: A Local Perspective

Background All Washington state and local agencies must comply with 42.56 RCW: The Public Records Act (PRA). In principle, the act is straightforward – government entities must ensure their operations are transparent, and citizens have a right to hold them accountable. In practice, the PRA can be challenging for local governments to comply with.

What the Study FoundThis study provides insight into the current challenges and opportunities related to local PRA-implementation through the eyes of those who work most closely with the law – local Public Records Officers. By triangulating findings from a literature review, online survey, and phone interviews, the researchers identified the following major themes: changing technology, limited time and resources, increasing workloads, misuse of the public records request system, and gaps between responsibilities and state law and support impact local PRA-compliance; and, despite these challenges, respondents believe in the spirit of the PRA and are dedicated to helping citizens. These findings add to the evidence that local governments continue to be resource-strained and that there are opportunities to clarify and modernize the PRA. However, this case study explores just a small-dimension of the broader discussion around government transparency in Washington State. The findings are non-generalizable and should be interpreted with caution. Policymakers, administrators and researchers may want to continue seeking citizen and stakeholder input to assess how well the PRA, in its current form, is fostering local government transparency.

Figure 1: Major themes identified by this study

Prepared by Michael Carpenter, Megan Duncan, and Lucas Minor The Evergreen State College Master of Public Administration Program

ATPS HighlightsAbout this ResearchThis study sought to answer the question: “What are the most common factors currently impacting local Public Records Officers’ ability to comply with Washington State’s Public Records Act?” The researchers reviewed relevant literature and surveyed and interviewed 46 Public Records Officers for Washington cities with populations of 10,000 to 100,000.

Why the Study is ImportantThe Public Records Act is an important tool for Washington citizens in ensuring they have access to information regarding the inner workings of their state and local governments. PRA debates make regular media headlines, and advocacy groups such as the Association of Washington Cities (AWC, 2016) contend that the PRA should be updated to help local agencies better comply with transparency requirements and reduce financial stress. Further, state policymaker interest in this issue continues to grow.

RecommendationsState officials are encouraged to consider the following actions in response to this study’s findings: Continue collaborating with

local officials to understand their challenges;

Consider providing additional funding or shared resources for local governments to expand their technology capacity and cover the costs of providing electronic records; and

Explore measures that discourage PRA abuse and limit the potential for profiteering.

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary.............................................................................................................4

Background..........................................................................................................................5

Current State of the PRA.....................................................................................................5

Study Purpose......................................................................................................................6

Literature Review................................................................................................................6

Research Objectives, Methodology and Design................................................................10

Research Objectives.......................................................................................................10

Research Methodology..................................................................................................10

Research Design............................................................................................................11

Analysis Approach.........................................................................................................12

Limitations.....................................................................................................................13

Assumptions..................................................................................................................13

Findings.............................................................................................................................14

About the Respondents..................................................................................................14

What the Respondents Said...........................................................................................14

Technology Considerations...........................................................................................15

Limited Time and Resources vs. Increasing Demands..................................................16

Misuse of the Public Records System...........................................................................16

Challenges with State Support and PRA-Clarity..........................................................17

Belief in the Intentions of the PRA................................................................................18

Impact of Years of Public Records Experience.............................................................18

Discussion and Conclusion................................................................................................19

Application of Findings and Recommendations............................................................19

Areas for Future Research.............................................................................................20

Reference List....................................................................................................................21

Appendix A – Definition of Terms....................................................................................24

Appendix B – Data Collection Instruments.......................................................................25

Appendix C – Data Dictionary..........................................................................................28

Appendix D - Key Themes from Online Survey and Phone Interviews...........................31

Appendix E – Notable Quotes from Qualitative Survey and Interview Questions...........33

Prepared by Michael Carpenter, Megan Duncan, and Lucas Minor

Executive Summary

All Washington state and local agencies must ensure that their operations are open to public scrutiny by complying with 42.56 RCW: The Public Records Act (PRA). In principle, the act seems straightforward – government entities must ensure their operations are transparent, and citizens have a right to hold them accountable. In practice, the PRA can be challenging for local governments to comply with. This study sought to answer the question: “What are the most common factors currently impacting local Public Records Officers’ ability to comply with Washington State’s Public Records Act?” The research team reviewed relevant literature and surveyed and interviewed 46 Public Records Officers for Washington cities with populations between 10,000 and 100,000. This study identified the following major themes: changing technology, limited time and resources, increasing workloads, misuse of the public records request system, and gaps between responsibilities and state law and support impact local PRA-compliance; and, despite these challenges, respondents believe in the spirit of the PRA and are dedicated to helping citizens. These findings add to the evidence that local governments continue to be resource-strained and that there are opportunities to clarify and modernize the PRA. Other state-sponsored research efforts and proposed legislation indicate that state policymakers are aware of these concerns, and are working with local governments to better understand these issues. State policymakers are encouraged to continue such efforts so that they can converge with local governments on mutually beneficial solutions that enhance local government transparency efforts.


Government Transparency Policies in Washington State: A Local Perspective

Background

All Washington state and local agencies must comply with 42.56 RCW: The Public Records Act (PRA).

The PRA was born out of Initiative 276, which voters overwhelmingly passed in 1972 during a time of

increasing national demand for government transparency (Paine, 2015, p. 548). The PRA is to be “liberally

construed and its exemptions narrowly construed,” meaning agencies must maintain the majority of their

records and disclose them proactively or upon citizen request (RCW 42.56.030). On the surface, the act seems

clear enough – government entities must ensure their operations are transparent, and citizens have a right to

hold them accountable. In practice, the PRA can be challenging for local governments to comply. Since the

PRA’s inception, the Legislature has made several statutory changes and courts have issued legal rulings to

clarify gaps in the law (Washington State Office of the Attorney General, 2015).

Current State of the PRA

PRA debates make regular media headlines, and advocacy groups such as the Association of

Washington Cities (AWC, 2016) contend that the PRA should be updated to help local agencies better comply

with transparency requirements and reduce financial stress. AWC is currently championing HB 2576, which has

stalled in the Washington State Legislature (2016). This bill would allow local agencies to limit the time spent

on public records requests, and would provide them with additional funding and dispute resolution options.

This, and other recent developments indicate that state policymaker interest in this issue is growing. In 2013, the

Legislature commissioned the William D. Ruckelshaus Center (2013) to conduct a study, with directions to

“collaborate with representatives of the public, the media, and local governments regarding public records

requests made to local government.” The Center’s findings provide anecdotal evidence that there are indeed

many points of contention on the issue. The State Auditor’s Office (2016) is currently conducting a

comprehensive survey of all cities, counties and special purpose districts in the state (results forthcoming).

Most importantly, citizens continue demanding increased government transparency (Piotrowski & Van Ryzin,

2007).


Research Question“What are the most

common factors currently impacting local Public Records Officers’

ability to comply with Washington State’s

Public Records Act?”

Study Purpose

Like citizens and state officials, local administrators also value transparency, but say that limited

resources and state support make meeting transparency requirements challenging (AWC, 2016). Therefore, it is

important to view these issues through the eyes of the gatekeepers to local

government information: Public Records Officers. Specifically, this study

asks: “What are the most common factors currently impacting local Public

Records Officers’ ability to comply with Washington State’s Public Records

Act?” By better understanding such factors, this study can help inform

state and local officials of potential opportunities to converge on mutually beneficial solutions to enhance

transparency efforts.

Literature Review

Introduction

In developing this study, the research team found it important to examine the literature to identify major

local PRA-compliance issues. The primary research tools used for this review were The Evergreen State

College’s research databases, Washington State government websites, the Municipal Services Resource Center,

and Google searches. What follows is not a complete analysis of all PRA-related issues, but examines some of

the more frequent and timely points of contention surrounding local PRA implementation. The research team

uncovered four overarching themes in the literature that warranted further exploration: technology is an

important and growing consideration, legislation needs further clarification, there are concerns that transparency

laws are misused, and more state-local collaboration is needed.

Technology Considerations

Some researchers have found that technology is an underutilized means of increasing of government

transparency, which is reflected in how governmental entities have operated e-government. Norris & Reddick's

(2013) uncovered that, while nearly every government entity has a website, most utilized it as a form of one-

way service delivery, rather than a mode of engaging citizens in a two-way dialogue. On the other hand, Paine


(2015) noted that technology has increased citizen access to public records and local governments increasingly

use their websites as portals for citizens to access information, though technology resources are not uniformly

applied (Yavuz & Welch, 2014). In a 2011 survey, respondents specified a “lack of financial resources” and a

“lack of technology/Web staff in the IT department,” as the two largest barriers to implementing “e-

government” strategies (Norris & Reddick, 2013, p. 171).

Individual privacy rights are also a concern related to technology’s role in implementing the PRA. For

instance, public employees are increasingly using their personal cellphones, tablets and laptops to conduct

public business. While convenient, this increases the potential for conflicts between statutory language and

constitutional protections, as highlighted by Nissen v. Pierce County (Paine, 2015). Citing this case, Paine

(2015) specifically called for an amendment to the PRA that would strike a balance between a public official’s

right to privacy and the State’s inclination towards broad public access to government records. The Washington

State Office of the Attorney General (2015, p. 26), on the other hand, cited the same case while implying a

preference for broad public disclosure over privacy rights. Concerns over citizens’ privacy rights are also

growing with technological advances. Police body cameras, for example, present both opportunities to hold

officers accountable and points of confusion related to protecting citizens’ privacy rights. The process of

determining if such videos can be released and the redaction necessary if videos are released can be costly, time

consuming, and present legal risk to local governments (Breitenbach, 2015). Such concerns highlight the fact

that, in its current form, the PRA has not adequately kept up with changing technology, and hampers

transparency efforts.

Legislation’s Need for Clarification

The PRA was designed to increase government transparency and citizen oversight (Washington State

Office of the Attorney General, 2015). In practice, gaps in the PRA leave courts to decipher the original

legislative intent. This has increased the frequency and costs of litigation required to access government

documents (Degnan, 2010). Evolving government communication practices also create PRA challenges, by

producing uncertainty around what constitutes a public record. The PRA has been revised over time to reflect


such communication shifts, but recent court cases indicate that technology is outpacing statutory revisions

(Degnan, 2010; Paine, 2013). In light of these advancements, the Washington State Office of the Attorney

General (2015) has compiled an open government resource manual that was developed to shed light on the legal

requirements and expectations concerning Washington State’s open government legislation. The current

language of the PRA is frequently viewed as legally restraining, rather than encouraging for increased local

government transparency.

The Misuse of Transparency Laws

Rizzardi (2015) argued that many factors make it difficult for public administrators to comply with

transparency laws, citing several examples where requestors misuse open government laws. For example,

requestors sometimes request the same documents twice with the intent to find discrepancies between the

requests and have precedence for filing legal action. Concerns also include requests for records that are known

to be exempt, such as documents with social security numbers or requests that agencies are physically unable to

fulfill (Rizzardi, 2015). In Washington, when an agency is unable to comply with a records request, the

individual has the right file a suit under PRA rules and potentially collect damages.

Additional measures are being examined to prevent individuals from profiting off of public agencies. A

recently proposed bill in the Washington State Legislature would provide judges with more discretion in how to

distribute awards when agencies are fined for failing to comply with the PRA (Smith, 2015). Smith (2015)

examined the bill, stating that the fines could go to the Secretary of State’s archives and records account, and

damages could still be provided to requesters who could prove a financial loss. The bill’s sponsor contended

that such a change would decrease the profitability for requestors and may deter abuse. Smith, along with city

government advocates, such The Association of Washington Cities (2015), supports such judiciary discretion.

Such concerns indicate that current configuration of the PRA is often viewed as a financial liability that impacts

local government transparency efforts.


State and Local Cooperation

Zimmerman (2001) argued for more state and local cooperation, writing that “Relations between a state

government and its general purpose local governments ideally should be based upon an interdependent

partnership with the state constitution granting sub-state units wide discretionary authority…” (p. 9). The PRA,

on the other hand, states that “free and open examination of public records is in the public interest, even though

such examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment to public officials or others” (RCW

42.56.550(3)). Zimmerman (2001) referred to similar legislation as “state paternalism,” and argued that it

“should be replaced by state elected officers welcoming new policy suggestions by local government officers

listening to their views on proposed state policy initiatives” (p. 13). Richard (2010) also supported the notion of

granting increased agency discretion when dealing with government transparency issues. The current structure

of the PRA is frequently viewed as a state mandated paternalistic burden, rather than as a vehicle, towards

increased local government transparency.

Discussion

The PRA was designed with the express purpose of fostering government transparency, though the

concerns cited above highlight distinct challenges for local agencies. Local administrators and advocacy groups

contend that certain PRA requirements are difficult to comply with as they are currently written. The

discussions outlined in this review, while abbreviated, highlighted key issues local administrators face in

implementing the PRA, and provided interesting insight in the development of this study. The on-going

dialogue surrounding these issues highlights the need to further explore the factors that impact local Public

Record Officers’ (PROs’) ability to comply with Washington States’ Public Records Act.

Research Objectives, Methodology and Design

Research Objectives

This study aims to aid state and local administrators in identifying gaps in the translation of the PRA to

the local level by better understanding the experiences of those who work most closely with the PRA on a daily

basis: local Public Records Officers. Ideally, illuminating areas of opportunity can help administrators and


policymakers ensure that PRA requirements and implementation facilitate maximum government transparency,

while allowing local flexibility.

Research Methodology

Local governments operate in complex environments. They must balance local citizens’ needs with the

responsibility of implementing policies handed down from state and federal governments. Accordingly, the

research team employed a structural functionalism paradigmatic perspective, which views social groups as

complex systems of many interacting parts working together to support the whole (Babbie, 2015, p. 38). This

methodology emphasizes that the researcher is an interpreter, rather than an active participant or detached

observer (Gould, 2015).

Research Design

To keep a focused project scope, the researchers chose a purposive sampling approach targeting Public

Records Officers for all Washington cities with populations between 10,000 and 100,000. This sample consisted

of 73 prospective participants (Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2015). An online survey was

developed through Survey Monkey to solicit responses from the entire sample. To gain deeper insight, the team

attempted to conduct phone interviews with five randomly selected individuals from the original sample.

The online survey consisted of 12 closed-ended, quantitative questions and 5 open-ended, qualitative

questions. The first four questions gathered demographical information, including: PRO’s city population, their

length of experience working in government and with public records, and the number of hours their cities spend

fulfilling public records requests each week. The remaining thirteen questions explored various factors related

to PRO experiences and perceptions working with the PRA. The primary variables measured, as drawn from the

literature review, are outlined in Table 1. The phone interview used five open-ended, qualitative questions to

dive deeper into PRO experiences related to the PRA.

See Appendix B for a copy of the survey and phone interview questions.

Table 1: Measured Variables Related Public Records Officers’ PRA-related Experiences


Perceptions of:

The amount of PRA misuse Ease of PRA compliance Level of State support Adequacy of privacy

protection Change in volume of

requests

Open-ended Responses to:

Impact of technology on PRA

Specific resource limitations

Suggestions for PRA changes

Anything else to share

Frequency of:

Feeling overburdened Having easy access to

records

Importance of:

Ensuring transparency Preventing PRA misuse

Data was collected from January 11 to January 25, 2016. The 73 prospective survey participants were

contacted via their publicly-listed email addresses with an invitation to participate in the survey. Of the 73 cities

contacted, 46 completed the survey, for a response rate of 63 percent. Two PROs responded to the invite email

that they would be unable to participate due to time/staffing limitations. These responses were valuable for

gaining more insight into the high-volume workloads cited in the literature and by the PRO the team consulted.

The researchers contacted the five PROs randomly selected for the phone interview via their publicly-listed

telephone numbers. Interviews were successfully completed with two of them.

Analysis Approach

The research team first downloaded the online survey data from Survey Monkey

into Excel, and transcribed handwritten notes from the two phone interviews into

electronic format. All data was scrubbed of personally identifiable information.

The qualitative data was analyzed first using Qualitative Content Analysis (Cho &

Lee, 2014). Responses were roughly coded using inductive analysis to uncover initial

themes. Responses were then reevaluated multiple times to uncover latent themes and

to compare and classify data into higher-order categories (Cho & Lee, 2014, p. 11). After

each coding step, the team debriefed to ensure agreement on the findings and next

steps. Quantitative data was then numerically coded with Microsoft Excel and a data

dictionary was developed (see Appendix C).


The researchers then used triangulation to compare key findings from the survey

and interviews against the literature review to uncover overarching themes to help

answer the research question. Univariate analysis was conducted on the quantitative

data to identify the most common factors impacting the respondents’ ability to comply

with the PRA. Respondents were then categorized, and cross tabulation was used to look

for notable differences in their perceptions related to working with public records based

on demographic information. The small sample size made some comparisons difficult,

but the inter-group variances that were identified are presented contingency tables

below. Qualitative data was synthesized to identify common themes. Finally, the team

developed relevant charts, graphs and images using Excel, Survey Monkey tools, and

Word to display summary statistics and findings.

Limitations

This case study focused on identifying the factors currently affecting small to medium-sized city Public

Records Officers’ ability to comply with the Public Records Act. Important PRA stakeholders including

Washington citizens, special interest groups, and other local government entities were excluded from this study

in order to maintain a narrow research scope. Accordingly, the findings below are non-generalizable, and any

potential inferences are limited.

The choice of data collection instruments limited the researchers’ ability to assess non-verbal cues that

could have provided additional context to respondent’s answers. It is also possible that survey respondents

filtered or edited their responses since they could respond at their own pace. In choosing to maximize

participant confidentiality, the research team could not follow-up individually to gain deeper insight into

respondents’ survey answers. The telephone interviews helped fill in some of these gaps by diving deeper into

some of the questions. These limitations, while notable, do not detract from this study’s validity and usefulness.


Assumptions

The research team began this study assuming it would be beneficial and useful to the research team,

PRO participants, and to state policymakers and administrators. While the benefits to the research team (e.g.

professional, academic and personal growth) were clear throughout the project, the benefits to other groups can

only be assumed. Based on the positive interaction with research participants, the team believes that

respondents appreciated having an opportunity to have their voices be heard, and share their perspectives on

working with the PRA.

Findings

About the Respondents

In terms of city size, the

distribution of survey respondents roughly

reflected that of the sample. About 49 percent of

the 46 survey respondents represented cities with

populations between 10,000 and 24,999. Nearly 70

percent had been in government service for ten or

more years, and 72 percent had dealt directly

with public records requests for five or more

years. The two phone interviewees also responded to the survey, so they are included in these proportions.

What the Respondents Said

There were many consistencies between survey and interview findings and the literature, regarding

factors currently impacting Public Records Officer's ability to comply with the PRA. Specifically, this study

identified the following themes: technology impacts, limited time and resources vs. increasing workloads,

misuse of the public records system, and most notably, challenges with state support and PRA-clarity. One

piece that stood out stronger in the survey and interview responses than in literature was respondents’ beliefs in


Figure 1

the spirit of the PRA and their dedication to helping citizens. These themes are explored below, and additional

details are included in the Appendices as follows:

Appendix D : Summary of k ey themes from the survey and interviews.

Appendix E : Notable quotes from qualitative survey questions and interviews.


New technology presents both challenges and opportunities to create a more efficient public records

management system. This reoccurring theme came up throughout the survey and phone interview responses and

was interrelated with several other PRA-related issues. Figure 2 provides a breakdown of open-ended responses

to the survey question: “How does changing technology impact your ability to comply with public records

requests?” to highlight this dynamic.

The majority (63 percent) of respondents mentioned challenges associated with changing technology,

though nearly as many (57 percent) cited potential benefits. Phone interviewees shared interesting insights on

how technology has been both beneficial and challenging. One interviewee said that the PRA was written

without recent technological advances in mind, and that an update to the law would be helpful. The other shared

challenges the city faced when attempting to implement an online records system. It had to be shut down after a

short period due to unintended misuse by requestors. This “double-edged technology sword” has obvious

impacts on respondents and provides interesting points for lawmaker consideration.


Benefits: Proactive

records posting Streamlined

workflow Easier to capture

and catalog records

Better tracking of records requests

Challenges: More records

being created Higher costs that

cannot be billed Ambiguities

with data types PRA lags behind

technology changes

Figure 2: “How does changing technology impact your ability to comply with public records requests?”

Limited Time and Resources vs. Increasing Demands

Respondents cited growing workloads and

several areas in which their cities were resource-

deficient. When asked about the change in the amount of

public records requests received in the past five years,

zero respondents said their workloads had somwhat

or substantially decreased, and about 62 percent

said their workloads substantially increased. The

majority of respondents (78 percent) also indicated

that they “feel overburdened by public records requests,”

about half the time or more. Responses to open-ended questions indicated that the most common resources that

respondents felt limited on were: staff, time, funding and technology/central data systems. Of these resources,

staffing was the most widely cited, and mentioned by 63 percent of respondents.

Misuse of the Public Records System

Survey respondents

acknowledged that, while PRA abuse

is a concern, they believe the

majority of citizens do not misuse

it. The open-ended survey

questions and phone interviews shed

more light on why this might be

with several respondents

clarifying that it is a relatively small

number of respondents who appear to intentionally misuse the PRA. One phone interviewee estimated that,

while the majority of requestors genuinely seek information, it’s two percent of the requests that take up 80


Figure 4

Replied “Somewhat” or “Substantially” Decreased0

Figure 3

“Staff is dedicated to providing public

records and supporting the democratic process

for our citizens.”- Survey Respondent

percent of her office’s time. The second phone interviewee agreed that it is not typically average citizens that

abuse the system. Rather, some individuals, lawyers, and businesses, and agency employees have used the

system as a means of profiting or because they “have an axe to grind.”

Challenges with State Support and PRA-Clarity

Another challenge

that respondents expressed was a gap

between what was being required

of them, and the support they receive

from state officials and the current

language of the PRA. Only nine

percent of respondents described

support they receive from state

policymakers and

administrators related to the PRA as “adequate” or “more than adequate.” Further, only 22 percent agreed or

strongly agreed that the PRA, in its current form, is usually easy to comply with; less than 20 percent agreed or

strongly agreed that the PRA, in its current form, adequately protects individual privacy.

In the open-ended questions, many survey respondents suggested modifications for the PRA. Frequently

cited items included: allowing cities to charge for providing electronic records; updating to the PRA to account

for changing technologies; changes that protect cities from requests that are overly broad, harassing, and/or

profit motivated; and revisions to reduce the overall financial burden and legal risk of compliance. Respondents

indicated that making such modifications to the PRA would improve service to citizens and better utilize

taxpayer dollars.

Belief in the Intentions of the PRA

The survey and interview results suggest that respondents believe that despite the noted PRA

shortcomings, the spirit of the PRA is well-intentioned and Public Records Officers are dedicated to ensuring


Figure 5

“Staff is dedicated to providing public

records and supporting the democratic process

for our citizens.”- Survey Respondent

their city is transparent. All 46 survey respondents (100%) indicated that ensuring their city is as transparent as

possible is “important” or “very important.” Although survey respondents and phone interviewees listed many

challenges, several expressed a love of their job and a passion for serving the public. It is clear that the

respondents understand the importance of their position as their city’s PRO, and want a system that will allow

them to share information freely with the public.

Impact of Years of Public Records Experience

The research team also examined whether survey respondents differed in their answers based on

demographic variables. Due to relatively skewed

respondent distributions and a small sample size, certain

intergroup comparisons were not appropriate. When

comparing the number of years working directly with

public records requests, however, respondents were

more evenly distributed, and there was evidence of

certain group differences. Respondents with more public

records experience were more likely to agree or strongly

agree that citizens rarely misuse the public records system and that the PRA, in its current form is easy to

comply with. They also appeared to more frequently have access to the records they needed. These findings

suggest that job experience related to respondent perceptions of PRA misuse and the ease of complying with the

PRA. These findings should be interpreted with caution, as statistical tests were not performed, due to sample

size limitations.


Table 2: Years of PR Experience Comparison

Tables 3 and 4: Years of PR Experience Comparison

Citizens in my community rarely misuse the public records request system.

Year

s w

orki

ng w

/ PR

Disagree/ Strongly Disagree

NeutralAgree/

Strongly Agree

Total

10+ Year

s

33.3% 6.7% 60.0% 28.3%

5 1 9 155 - 9 Year

s

27.8% 22.2% 50.0% 39.1%

5 4 9 18< 5

Years

38.5% 38.5% 23.1% 32.6%

5 5 3 13Total 15 10 21 46

The Public Records Act, in its current form, is usually easy to comply with.

Year

s w

orki

ng w

/ PR

Disagree/ Strongly Disagree

NeutralAgree/

Strongly Agree

Total

10+ Year

s

40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 32.6%

6 3 6 155 - 9 Year

s

72.2% 16.7% 11.1% 39.1%

13 3 2 18< 5

Years

76.9% 7.7% 15.4% 28.3%

10 1 2 13Total 29 7 10 46

How often do you have easy access to the public records that people ask for…?

Year

s w

orki

ng w

/ PR Rarely/

Almost Never

About ½ the Time

Freq./Almost Always

Total

10+ Years

7.1% 28.6% 64.3% 28.9%1 4 9 14

5 - 9 Years

5.6% 50.0% 44.4% 40.0%1 9 8 18

< 5 Years

23.1% 54.9% 23.1% 31.1%3 7 3 13

Total 5 20 18 45

Discussion and Conclusion

Application of Findings and Recommendations

This study provides additional insight into the current challenges and opportunities related to local PRA-

implementation through the eyes of those who work most closely with the law – local public records officers.

By triangulating findings from the literature review, online survey, and phone interviews, the research team

constructed a vivid narrative of the multiple issues surrounding the PRA. While this study focused on just one

of the many PRA stakeholders, the consistency between the survey and interview data and the literature support

the findings’ validity. Further, the recent legislation proposals and state-sponsored studies discussed at the

beginning of this report highlight that this is a growing issue that has the attention of state policymakers and

administrators. These developments are encouraging, and state policymakers are encouraged to continue this

conversation. Specifically, lawmakers will likely want to:

Continue collaborating with local officials to understand their challenges;

Consider providing additional funding or shared resources for local governments to expand their

technology capacity and cover the costs of providing electronic records; and

Explore measures that discourage PRA abuse and limit the potential for profiteering.

This report adds to the evidence that local governments continue to be resource-strained and that there

are opportunities to modernize the PRA. It should assure state lawmakers that while many respondents feel

overwhelmed by increasing workloads, requestor misuse, and technological ambiguities coupled with limited

time and resources, there remains a sense of pride and dedication to government transparency and helping

citizens access needed information.

Areas for Future Research

This study focused specifically on the perceptions of Public Records Officers in Washington cities with

populations between 10,000 and 100,000, limiting the generalizability of this study to the entire discussion

surrounding the PRA. Policymakers, administrators and researchers may especially want to continue seeking

citizen input to assess how well they feel that PRA is helping them get the information they need from their


local governments. It may be especially insightful to study “frequent flyers” that make repeated public records

requests to cities. The William D. Ruckelshaus Center (2013), in the recommendations section of their recent

study, puts it well: “It will be important to clarify beyond anecdotes and perceptions what percentage of local

governments is being significantly impacted by records requests, and in what ways and magnitudes, to establish

a mutually-accepted set of data” (p. 13). This concept of “mutually-acceptance” is critical to ensure well-

informed and well-vetted decisions are made.


Reference List

(*)Items labeled with an asterisk indicate key literature review resources

Association of Washington Cities. (2016). Advocacy – Public records. Retrieved from

http://www.awcnet.org/Advocacy/Citylegislativepriorities/publicrecords.aspx.

Babbie, E. (2015). The practice of social research (14th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Ballotpedia. (2015b). Government transparency. Retrieved from http://ballotpedia.org/Government.

(*)Breitenbach, S. (2015, September 22). States grapple with public disclosure of police body-camera footage.

The Pew Charitable Trusts - Stateline. Retrieved from http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-

analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/09/22/states-grapple-with-public-disclosure-of-police-body-camera-

footage.

Cho, J. Y., and Lee, E. H. (2014). Reducing confusion about Grounded Theory and qualitative content analysis:

Similarities and differences. The Qualitative Report 19(64), 1-20.

(*)Cuillier, D. (2008). Access attitudes: A social learning approach to examining community engagement and

support for press access to government records. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(3),

549–576. http://doi.org/10.1177/107769900808500305.

(*)Degnan, D. W. (2010). Accessing Arizona’s government: Open records requests for metadata and other

electronically stored information after Lake v. City of Phoenix. Phoenix Law Review 3(1), 69-98.

Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.

Gould, Amy. (2015, October 22). Cheat sheet: Language of research [Handout].

Municipal Research and Service Center. (2015a). Public records act for Washington cities, counties, and

special purpose districts. Retrieved from http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Legal/Open-

Government/Public-Records-Act.aspx.

Municipal Research and Service Center. (2015b). Special purpose districts in Washington.

http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Governance/Forms-of-Government-and-Organization/Special-

Purpose-Districts-in-Washington.aspx.


(*)Norris, D. F., & Reddick, C. G. (2013). Local e-government in the United States: Transformation or

incremental change? Public Administration Review, 73(1), 165–175. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-

6210.2012.02647.x.

(*)Paine, P. (2015). Public records in private devices: How public employees' Article I, Section 7 privacy rights

create a dilemma for state and local government. Washington Law Review, 90(1), 545-577. Retrieved

from http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/handle/1773.1/1447.

Piotrowski, S. J., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2007). Citizen attitudes toward transparency in local government. The

American Review of Public Administration 37(3), 306-323. Retrieved from

http://www.wikileakssudbury.org/WKL/E-1.pdf.

Revised Code of Washington 42.56: Public Records Act. Retrieved from

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.56.

(*)Richard, W. D. (2010). Procedural rules under Washington’s Public Records Act: The case for agency

discretion. Washington Law Review, 85, 493-516. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1773.1/471.

(*)Rizzardi, K. (2015). Sunburned: How misuse of the public records laws creates an overburdened, more

expensive, and less transparent government. The Stetson Law Review, 44(2), 425-447. Retrieved from

http://www.stetson.edu/law/lawreview/media/44-2Rizzardi%28II%29.FINAL.pdf.

(*)Smith, L. (2015, February 12). Lawmakers look to divert public-records awards. The Olympian. Retrieved

from http://www.theolympian.com/news/local/politics-government/article26108191.html.

(*)Washington State Auditor’s Office. (2015, April 10). Local governments: Promoting transparency and

accountability. Retrieved from http://portal.sao.wa.gov/

Washington State Auditor’s Office. (2016). Performance audit: Trends in public records requests. Retrieved

from http://www.sao.wa.gov/state/Pages/PA_RecordsStudy.aspx.

Washington State Legislature. (2016). HB 2576 -2015-16: Concerning public records act requests to local

agencies. Retrieved from http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2576&year=2015


http://www.wikileakssudbury.org/WKL/E-1.pdf

Washington State Office of Financial Management. (2015, April 1). April 1, 2015 population of cities, towns

and counties: Used for allocation of selected state revenues. Retrieved from

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/april1/ofm_april1_population_final.pdf .

(*)Washington State Office of the Attorney General. (2015, October 1). Washington State sunshine laws 2015:

An open government resource manual. Retrieved from http://www.atg.wa.gov/open-government-

resource-manual.

William D. Ruckelshaus Center. (2013, December 13). Situation assessment of public records requests to local

governments. http://ruckelshauscenter.wsu.edu/.

(*)Yavuz, N., & Welch, E. W. (2014). Factors affecting openness of local government websites: Examining the

differences across planning, finance and police departments. Government Information Quarterly 31,

574-583. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.004.

(*)Zimmerman, J. F. (2001). Partnership government: State-local relations. Spectrum: Journal of State

Government, 74(3), 9-13. Retrieved from http://www.csg.org/knowledgecenter/docs/spec_su01.pdf.

Appendix A – Definition of Terms

Key Terms

E-government

“The use of information and technology to support and improve public

policies and government operations, engage citizens and provide

comprehensive and timely government services” (Scholl 2008, as cited in

Yavuz & Welch, 2014, p. 574).

Local Government

“‘Every county, city, town, municipal corporation, quasi-municipal

corporation, or special purpose district’ or ‘any office, department,

division, bureau, board, commission, or agency thereof, or other local

public agency’” (MRSC, 2015a).


Public Record

“Any writing containing information relating to the conduct of

government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary

function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency

regardless of physical form or characteristics.” Note that “writing”

indicates any “recorded” information (42.56 RCW).

Public Records Act (PRA)

Chapter 42.56 of the Revised Code of Washington, which outlines public

disclosure requirements for state and local governments.

Public Records Officer (PRO)

“Point of contact for members of the public in requesting disclosure of

public records and to oversee the agency's compliance with the public

records disclosure requirements of this chapter” (RCW 46.56.580).

Transparency

“Government's obligation to share information with citizens. It is at the

heart of how citizens hold their public officials accountable” (Ballotpedia,

2015b).


Appendix B – Data Collection Instruments

Online Survey Questions

1. What is the population of your city?

Less than 10,000 people 10,000 - 24,999 people 25,000- 49,999 people 50,000 - 74,999 people 75,000 – 99,999 people More than 100,000 people

2. How many years have you been in government service?

Less than 2 years 2 - 4 years 5 - 9 years 10 – 20 years More than 20 years

3. How many years have you dealt directly with public records requests?

Less than 2 years 2 - 4 years 5 - 10 years 10 – 20 years More than 20 years

4. About how many hours per week does your agency spend fulfilling public records requests?

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements (Questions 5-7):

5. Citizens in my community rarely misuse the public records request system. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

6. The Public Records Act, in its current form, is usually easy to comply with. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

7. The Public Records Act, in its current form, adequately protects individual privacy.


Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

8. How often do you feel overburdened by public records requests?

Almost Never Rarely About Half of the Time Frequently Almost Always

9. How often do you have easy access to the public records that people ask for in their public records requests?

Almost Never Rarely About Half of the Time Frequently Almost Always

10. How would you describe the level of support that you receive from state policymakers and administrators related to the Public Records Act?

Less than adequate support Somewhat adequate support Adequate support More than adequate support Not sure/Don’t know

Please rate the importance of the following in the work that you do (Questions 11 & 12):

11. Ensuring my city is as transparent as possible.

Not At All Important Somewhat Important Important Very Important Not sure/Don’t know

12. Preventing citizen misuse of the public records request system.

Not At All Important Somewhat Important Important Very Important Not sure/Don’t know


13. Which of the following statements best describes the change in the amount of public records requests that your city has received over the past five years?

The amount has: Substantially decreased Somewhat decreased Stayed about the same Somewhat increased Substantially increased Not sure/Don’t know

14. How does changing technology impact your ability to comply with public records requests?

15. What, if any, resources is your city limited on that make it difficult to comply with the Public Records Act?

16. Generally, do you feel that the Public Records Act, in its current form, is working well? Why or why not?

17. Is there anything else that you would like to share regarding your experience as a Public Records Officer for your city? (optional)

In-Depth Phone Interview Questions

1. What are your perceptions of how citizens use the public records request system?

2. How does changing technology impact your ability to comply with public records requests?

3. Generally, do you feel that the Public Records Act, in its current form, is working well? Why or why not?

4. What, if any, changes would you make to the Public Records Act if you had the opportunity?

5. Is there anything else that you would like to share regarding your experience as a Public Records Officer for your city?

Appendix C – Data Dictionary

Coding Scheme to Accompany Online Survey

Name Question Label

Response Type Value Labels

Missing Value Labels

Level of Measure

Q1 City Population Numeric

1 = Less than 10,0002 = 10,000 - 49,9993 = 50,000 - 74,9994 = 75,000 – 99,9995 = More than 100,000

8 Nominal


Coding Scheme to Accompany Online Survey

Q2 Years in Gov. Svc. Numeric

1 = Less than 2 yrs2 = 2 - 4 yrs3 = 5 - 10 yrs4 = 10 – 20 yrs5 = More than 20 yrs

8 Nominal

Q3 Years as PRO Numeric

1 = Less than 2 yrs2 = 2 - 4 yrs3 = 5 - 10 yrs4 = 10 – 20 yrs5 = More than 20 yrs

8 Nominal

Q4Weekly hours spent on records requests

String Actual N/A Nominal open-ended

Q5Citizens rarely abuse public records

Numeric

1 = Strongly Disagree2 = Disagree3 = Neutral4 = Agree5 = Strongly Agree

8

Ordinal, Likert 5 point scale

Q6 PRA protects privacy Numeric


8Ordinal, Likert 4 point scale.

Q7 PRA easy to comply with Numeric


8


Q8How often do you feel overburdened

Numeric

1 = Almost Never2 = Rarely3 = About Half of the Time4 = Frequently5 = Almost Always

8


Q9

How often do you have easy access to records

Numeric

1 = Almost Never2 = Rarely3 = About Half of the Time4 = Frequently5 = Almost Always

8


Q10 Level of PRA support from state officials

Numeric 1 = Less than adequate support2 = Somewhat adequate support3 = Adequate support4 = More than adequate

8; 6 = Not sure/Don’t know



Coding Scheme to Accompany Online Surveysupport

Q11Importance:Ensuring city is transparent

Numeric

1 = Not at all important2 = Somewhat important3 = Important4 = Very important



Q12

Importance:Preventing citizen abuse of requests

Numeric

1 = Not at all important2 = Somewhat important3 = Important4 = Very important



Q13

Change in number of records requests in last 5 years

Numeric

1 = Substantially decreased2 = Somewhat decreased3 = Stayed about the same4 = Somewhat increased5 = Substantially increased

8; 6 = Not sure/don’t know


Q14

Changing technology impact on records requests


Q15 Limited resources String Actual N/A Nominal

open-ended

Q16 PRA working well? String Actual N/A Nominal

open-ended

Q17 Anything else to share String Actual N/A Nominal

open-ended

Coding Scheme to Accompany Phone Interviews

Name Question Label

Response Type Value Labels

Missing Value Labels

Level of Measure

Q1

Perceptions of citizen use of public records request system


Q2Changing technology impacts


Q3 PRA working well? String Actual N/A Nominal

open-ended

Q4 Changes to PRA String Actual N/A Nominal

open-ended

Q5 Anything else String Actual N/A Nominal


to share open-ended


Appendix D - Key Themes from Online Survey and Phone Interviews

Theme Corresponding Question Survey Results


How does changing technology impact your ability to comply with public records requests?

(S), (I)

Open-Ended Coded Answers:- 45.7% It creates challenges- 17.4% It can be helpful &

challenging- 10.9% It helps- 6.5% No impact- 15.2% No answer- 4.3% Other

Theme: Can increase government transparency, but can increase the

costs and ambiguity with PRA

Limited Timeand Resources

vs.Increasing DemandsIncreasing Demands

How often do you feel overburdened by public records

requests?(S)

- 22.22% Rarely/almost never- 35.56% About half the time- 42.23% Almost always or

frequently

What, if any, resources is your city limited on that make it difficult to comply with the

Public Records Act?(S)

Open-Ended Coded Answers:(counts are not mutually-exclusive)

- 29 mentioned Staff//Human Resources

- 11 mentioned Technology- 9 mentioned Funding

Which of the following statements best describes the

change in the amount of public records requests that your city has received over the past five years?

- 0.0% Substantially/somewhat decreased

- 13.3% Stayed the same- 24.4% Somewhat increased- 62.2% Substantially

increased

Misuse of the Public Records

System

Please rate the importance of the following in the work that you

do: Preventing citizen misuse of the public records request system.

(S)

- 6.7% Not at all important- 13.3% Somewhat important- 64.4% Important or very

important- 15.6% Not sure/don’t know

Citizens in my community rarely misuse the public records request

system.(S)

- 32.6% Disagree or strongly disagree

- 21.7% Neutral- 45.7% Agree or strongly

agree

What are your perceptions of how citizens use the public records

request system?(I)

Phone interview findings- Most don’t abuse; 2% of

requests take 80% of time- Some have ‘axe to grind’- Attorneys misuse PRA for

‘discovery’ process- Broad requests an issue

Challenges with State Support

and PRA-Clarity

How would you describe the level of support that you receive

from state policymakers and

- 51.1% Less than adequate- 28.9% Somewhat adequate- 6.7% Adequate


Theme Corresponding Question Survey Resultsadministrators related to the

Public Records Act? (S)- 2.2% More than adequate- 11.1% Not sure/don’t know

The Public Records Act, in its current form, is usually easy to

comply with. (S)

- 63.1% Strongly disagree or disagree

- 15.2% Neutral- 21.7% Agree

(0.0% Strongly agree)

The Public Records Act, in its current form, adequately protects

individual privacy. (S)

- 52.2% Strongly disagree or disagree

- 28.3% Neutral- 19.6% Strongly disagree or

agree

Generally, do you feel that the Public Records Act, in its current form, is working well? Why or

why not?(S), (I)

Open-Ended Coded Answers:(counts are not mutually-exclusive)

- 20 mentioned concerns of misuse

- 14 mentioned cost concerns- 10 mentioned concerns of

people profiting off of PRA- 8 mentioned lack of protection

for agenciesWhat, if any, changes would you make to the Public Records Act if

you had the opportunity? (I)

- Update for technology- Offer an appeals process- Extend request turnaround time

Belief in the intentions of the

PRA

Please rate the importance of the following in the work that you

do: Ensuring my city is as transparent as possible. (S)

- 0.0% Not at all/somewhat important or not sure/don’t know- 8.7% Important- 93.3% Very important

Is there anything else that you would like to share regarding your experience as a Public

Records Officer for your city?(S), (I)

Open-Ended Coded Answers: (counts are not mutually-exclusive)

- 6 mentioned concerns related to misuse

- 5 mentioned a dedication to transparency

- 4 mentioned concerns related to time/money

- 4 mentioned increasing time/workload

Key: (I) = Interview question(S) = Survey question


Appendix E – Notable Quotes from Qualitative Survey and Interview Questions

Theme Corresponding Question Supportive Quotations


How does changing technology impact your ability to comply with

public records requests?

- Changing technology greatly impacts our ability to comply. There are new software programs out there that are specifically designed to process public record requests, as well as electronic management systems that can allow the public to search for documents rather than requesting them. Unfortunately these programs are cost-prohibitive to most agencies, ours included. If we had them it would improve our ability to comply.

- It is challenging to keep up with all the different technologies and trying to get the law expectations to catch up to technology.

- We do not have enough money to keep up with the changes (in technology). Our dollars are spread thin and public records are not "sexy" enough to warrant technology projects.

Limited Time and

Resources vs. Increasing Demands

What, if any, resources is your city limited on that make it difficult to comply with the Public

Records Act?

- My agency, like all public agencies, only has so much money, which translates into priorities. Agencies have to comply with the PRA, but they also have public priorities like responding to emergency calls and making sure streets are drivable and safe. It all ultimately comes from the same source, citizens. So agencies have to weigh how much risk they are willing to absorb not strictly complying with the PRA in order to also accomplish their other missions.

- Staff time and funding. This is an unfunded mandate with no way to recoup costs.

- Our staff time is vital. I believe that there is no consideration taken for the amount of time it takes to respond to a request.

Misuse of the Public Records

System

Generally, do you feel that the Public Records Act, in its current form, is working well? Why

or why not?

- The PRA is not working well at all because it is written in a way that only protects the requester. It does not protect the agencies from superfluous requests that cost an endless amount of time and staff resources to stay in compliance. It allows people to make purposeless requests and not have to pay a single penny for the cost of provision. This deprives the citizens of quality services that could be provided if staff time wasn't instead spent on superfluous public record requests.

Challenges with State

Support and

Generally, do you feel that the Public Records Act, in its current form,

- I feel like the goal of government transparency and accountability to taxpayers is absolutely worthwhile. The requirements (time) and liabilities ($) associated


Theme Corresponding Question Supportive Quotations

PRA-Clarity is working well? Why or why not?

with the public disclosure act are unreasonable. The use of the public disclosure act for educational purposes and business purposes, while perhaps well-intentioned, is burdensome.

Belief in the intentions of

the PRA

Is there anything else that you would like to share regarding your

experience as a Public Records Officer for

your city?

- Staff is dedicated to providing public records and supporting the democratic process for our citizens.

- I am very proud to be the face of government transparency in our city and to facilitate getting records into the hands of the people requesting them. It's tough not to get discouraged by people who fish for records hoping for a lawsuit/violation of the act when we're working hard to ensure compliance. It feels like a land mind at times. At the same time, complicated requests fine hone our skills at ensuring compliance.


carpenter-duncan-minor-pra-researchreport-final (2)

Documents