Restore access to public information

Tom Carr has a chance to prove he is the open-government advocate he claims to be with his appointment to lead a committee scrutinizing state laws that have eroded Washington's public-records law.

The Seattle city attorney's challenge is winning over open-government advocates who blame him for a troubling shift in the state's legal interpretation of attorney-client privilege when it comes to disclosing government records. In Hangartner v. City of Seattle, the state Supreme Court sided with Seattle, saying government agencies can claim attorney-client privilege to withhold documents from the public — even when there is no threat of litigation.

The Hangartner hangover has resulted in local governments increasingly asserting the privilege when they deny public-document requests. The outcry over that ruling, among others, helped spur support for this new "sunshine" committee.

The panel, which has its first meeting Tuesday, is charged with reviewing more than 300 exemptions that have been loaded onto the state's Public Records Act over the years.

Some exemptions are legitimate because they protect the personal information of state clients, such as the disabled, or sensitive information, such as Social Security numbers. Others, such as the one that hides information about ginseng growers and not other producers, is suspect.

In addition to Carr, Gov. Christine Gregoire appointed five other members to the 13-member Public Records Accountability Executive Committee — including two well-known for their work on behalf of open government. The ongoing committee is the idea of Attorney General Rob McKenna, who appointed two members. State Auditor Brian Sonntag appointed one candidate. The remaining four are legislators.

Here are a few suggestions for how Carr can win over his critics:

• Embrace the message of the original Public Records Act: "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."

• Pare exemptions: Place the heaviest burden on justifying why an exemption should continue — not on why it should be eliminated.

• Do more than the minimum: As chair, Carr has the discretion to call more meetings than only the four per year required by the state law establishing the committee. With more than 300 exemptions to review for starters, four days won't make a dent.

• Tackle the tough issues first. Scrutinize the merits of exemptions that purport to protect trade secrets or privacy — but maybe don't or that aren't necessary or appropriate.

The committee's job is to restore appropriate access to public information where it has been restricted — either inadvertently or with ill-considered intent.

Carr's appointment puts him — and the governor — on the hot seat.