This report examines challenges local governments in Washington State face in complying with the state's Public Records Act. It surveyed and interviewed 46 public records officers from cities with populations between 10,000 and 100,000. The study found the main challenges were limited resources to handle increasing workloads, changing technology requirements, misuse of public records requests, and unclear guidance from state laws and support. However, respondents believed in transparency and helping citizens access information. The report recommends state officials continue collaborating with local governments and provide additional funding and resources to support transparency efforts.

1. GovernmentTransparency Policies
in WashingtonState:
A LocalPerspective
RESEARCH REPORT
MARCH 10, 2016PREPARED BY: MICHAEL CARPENTER
MEGAN DUNCAN
LUCAS MINOR
Photo credit: http://pioneerinstitute.org/
The Evergreen State College | Master of Public Administration Program

2. Prepared by Michael Carpenter,Megan Duncan,and Lucas Minor
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 Found
This 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
ATPS
Highlights
About this Research
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
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 Important
The 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.
Recommendations
State 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.

3. Table of Contents
Executive 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

4. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 4
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.

5. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 5
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

6. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 6
Research Question
“What are the most
common factors
currently impacting local
Public Records Officers’
ability to comply with
Washington State’s
Public Records Act?”
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).
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.

7. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 7
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

8. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 8
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 Needfor 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.

9. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 9
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.

10. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 10
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
ResearchObjectives
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.
ResearchMethodology
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).

11. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 11
ResearchDesign
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 RelatedPublic 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

12. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 12
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

13. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 13
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.

14. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 14
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 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 key themes from the survey and interviews.
 Appendix E: Notable quotes from qualitative survey questions and interviews.
Figure 1

15. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 15
Technology Considerations
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: “Howdoes changing technology impact your ability to comply with public records requests?”

16. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 16
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
Figure 4
Replied “Somewhat” or
“Substantially” Decreased0
Figure 3

17. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 17
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 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
Figure 5

18. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 18
“Staff is dedicated to
providing public
records and supporting
the democratic process
for our citizens.”
- Survey Respondent
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 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
Citizens in my community rarely misuse
the public records request system.
Yearsworkingw/PR
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
Neutral
Agree/
Strongly
Agree
Total
10+
Years
33.3% 6.7% 60.0% 28.3%
5 1 9 15
5 - 9
Years
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 13
Total 15 10 21 46
Table 2: Years of PR Experience Comparison

19. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 19
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.
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
The Public Records Act, in its current
form, is usually easy to comply with.
Yearsworkingw/PR
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
Neutral
Agree/
Strongly
Agree
Total
10+
Years
40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 32.6%
6 3 6 15
5 - 9
Years
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 13
Total 29 7 10 46
How often do you have easy access to
the public records that people ask for…?
Yearsworkingw/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
Tables 3 and 4: Years of PR Experience Comparison

20. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 20
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.

21. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 21
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.

22. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 22
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.

23. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 23
(*)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
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.

24. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 24
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).

25. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 25
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

26. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 26
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

27. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 27
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?

28. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 28
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 10,000
2 = 10,000 - 49,999
3 = 50,000 - 74,999
4 = 75,000 – 99,999
5 = More than 100,000
8 Nominal
Q2
Years in Gov.
Svc.
Numeric
1 = Less than 2 yrs
2 = 2 - 4 yrs
3 = 5 - 10 yrs
4 = 10 – 20 yrs
5 = More than 20 yrs
8 Nominal
Q3 Years as PRO Numeric
1 = Less than 2 yrs
2 = 2 - 4 yrs
3 = 5 - 10 yrs
4 = 10 – 20 yrs
5 = More than 20 yrs
8 Nominal
Q4
Weekly hours
spent on
records requests
String Actual N/A
Nominal
open-ended
Q5
Citizens rarely
abuse public
records
Numeric
1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree
8
Ordinal,
Likert 5
point scale
Q6
PRA protects
privacy
Numeric
1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree
8
Ordinal,
Likert 4
point scale.
Q7
PRA easy to
comply with
Numeric
1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree
8
Ordinal,
Likert 5
point scale

29. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 29
Coding Scheme to Accompany Online Survey
Q8
How often do
you feel
overburdened
Numeric
1 = Almost Never
2 = Rarely
3 = About Half of the Time
4 = Frequently
5 = Almost Always
8
Ordinal,
Likert 5
point scale
Q9
How often do
you have easy
access to
records
Numeric
1 = Almost Never
2 = Rarely
3 = About Half of the Time
4 = Frequently
5 = Almost Always
8
Ordinal,
Likert 5
point scale
Q10
Level of PRA
support from
state officials
Numeric
1 = Less than adequate
support
2 = Somewhat adequate
support
3 = Adequate support
4 = More than adequate
support
8; 6 = Not
sure/Don’t
know
Ordinal,
Likert 4
point scale
Q11
Importance:
Ensuring city is
transparent
Numeric
1 = Not at all important
2 = Somewhat important
3 = Important
4 = Very important
8; 6 = Not
sure/Don’t
know
Ordinal,
Likert 4
point scale
Q12
Importance:
Preventing
citizen abuse of
requests
Numeric
1 = Not at all important
2 = Somewhat important
3 = Important
4 = Very important
8; 6 = Not
sure/Don’t
know
Ordinal,
Likert 4
point scale
Q13
Change in
number of
records requests
in last 5 years
Numeric
1 = Substantially decreased
2 = Somewhat decreased
3 = Stayed about the same
4 = Somewhat increased
5 = Substantially increased
8; 6 = Not
sure/don’t
know
Ordinal,
Likert 5
point scale
Q14
Changing
technology
impact on
records requests
String Actual N/A
Nominal
open-ended
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

30. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 30
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
String Actual N/A
Nominal
open-ended
Q2
Changing
technology
impacts
String Actual N/A
Nominal
open-ended
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
to share
String Actual N/A
Nominal
open-ended

31. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 31
Appendix D - Key Themes from Online Survey and Phone Interviews
Theme Corresponding Question Survey Results
Technology
Considerations
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 Time
and Resources
vs.
Increasing
Demands
Increasing
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

32. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 32
Theme Corresponding Question Survey Results
Challenges with
State Support
and PRA-Clarity
How would you describe the
level of support that you receive
from state policymakers and
administrators related to the
Public Records Act? (S)
- 51.1% Less than adequate
- 28.9% Somewhat adequate
- 6.7% Adequate
- 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 agencies
What, 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

33. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 33
Appendix E – Notable Quotes from Qualitative Survey and Interview Questions
Theme
Corresponding
Question
Supportive Quotations
Technology
Considerations
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.

34. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY 34
Theme
Corresponding
Question
Supportive Quotations
Challenges
with State
Support and
PRA-Clarity
Generally, do you feel
that the Public Records
Act, in its current form,
is working well? Why
or why not?
- I feel like the goal of government transparency and
accountability to taxpayers is absolutely worthwhile.
The requirements (time) and liabilities ($) associated
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.