State Supreme Court Lays out New Guidance toward Higher Penalties for Public Records Violations.
In a 5-4 decision released this morning, the Washington Supreme Court has set forth new reasoning and guidelines to toughen penalties against agencies for willful or negligent violations of the state’s public records law. 
The decision, authored by Justice Richard Sanders, comes in the long-running case of Yousoufian v. the office of King County Executive Ron Sims and stems from numerous violations of the public records act committed by King County officials as they sought to delay and thwart Yousoufian’s efforts to get documents related the county’s involvement in building a new football stadium for the Seattle Seahawks. Yousoufian was a critic of the project.
“King County failed to reply to Yousoufian’s clear request promptly
or accurately,” Justice Sanders wrote for the majority. “King County failed to train its responding personnel or supervise its response. King County did not comply strictly to the procedures set forth in RCW 42.56.520, failing to seek clarification from Yousoufian when necessary, failing to give any reason for its delay, failing to set forth an exception for its refusal, failing to provide any estimate of its delayed response time, and making Yousoufian contact King County more than 11 times over the course of two years to obtain the requested information when under the statute only one request should suffice.
“King County either made no explanation of its noncompliance or
misrepresented the truth. As the trial judge found, with proper diligence and attention,King County could have responded accurately to Yousoufian within five days. The potential for public harm was high; the requested records tested the veracity of King County’s assertions regarding a pending referendum on a $300 million public financing scheme. The request was time-sensitive, seeking documents relevant to the upcoming referendum, whereas the disclosure of these documents was delayed years beyond the election day without justification.
“Finally, proper deterrence for King County and others clearly requires a penalty
at the high end of the penalty range.”
One of the clearly significant aspects of the ruling is the high court’s push back on the traditional bias of local trial courts to give the violating agency the benefits of the doubt by working from the low end of the penalty range (5$ to $100 per violation, per day) in assessing penalties against agencies found to have violated the law.
“The trial court must consider the entire penalty range established by the legislature,” wrote Justice Sanders. “..Considering the entire penalty range eliminates the perception of bias associated with presuming the lowest penalty. Because the minimum penalty is mandatory for violations regardless of an agency’s good faith efforts, starting from the lowest penalty presumes the least violative conduct. The PRA [public records act] does not support that presumption.”