skip navigation

Agency Size Can Influence PRA Penalties


July 2, 2018 by Foster Pepper
Category: Open Government Advisor , Public Records Act

Agency Size Can Influence PRA Penalties

Written by Andrea L. Bradford 

The Washington Court of Appeals recently ruled that the Superior Court is permitted to consider the small size of a municipality when reducing penalties under the Public Records Act (PRA).

In the third appeal related to a 2003 public records request, the Washington Court of Appeals concluded that in setting a penalty for violations of the Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering the small size of the City of Mesa and the burden the penalty imposed per capita on its taxpayers.

Courts have authority to enter penalties of up to $100 per day for wrongful withholding of public records under the PRA. The Washington Supreme Court has adopted a 16-factor test to determine the size of the penalty. One of these factors is deterrence considering the size of the agency and the facts of the case.

Here, the trial court calculated a penalty based on the 16 factors and then reduced the overall penalty amount from approximately $350,000 to $175,000, an amount the court deemed “sufficient to deter future conduct” without financially crippling the agency, the City of Mesa.

The population of Mesa is under 500, and the court concluded a per-capita penalty of $350 was sufficient to deter misconduct. The Court of Appeals concluded that giving greater weight to the deterrence factor and size of the agency in this case was reasonable given the Mesa’s limited budget and resources.

The Court also addressed the retroactivity of amendments to the PRA provision regarding penalties. In 2011, the legislature amended the penalty provision, RCW 42.56.550(4), to remove language that penalties should be between $5 — $100 per day. Under the current language, which permits penalties “not to exceed one hundred dollars” per day of wrongful withholding, courts have discretion not to impose penalties if appropriate. The Court determined that this amendment was remedial and thus, retroactive: Therefore, it could be applied to the calculation of penalties for the 2003 public records request.

Questions? Comments?

If you have questions about this topic or other local government issues, please use our Ask MRSC form or call us at (206) 625-1300 or (800) 933-6772. If you have questions or comments about this blog post, please email the MRSC Insight Editors.

About Foster Pepper

With more than 115 attorneys located in Seattle and Spokane, Foster Pepper has been an integral part of the Pacific Northwest community. Attorneys with the firm specialize in issues impacting publicly traded companies, municipalities, government agencies, entrepreneurs, philanthropic organizations and individuals throughout the region.

Staff with Foster Pepper write for MRSC as Open Government Advisors. The views expressed in Advisor columns represent the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of MRSC.

VIEW ALL POSTS BY Foster Pepper

Comments

"DeWayne, Andrea Bradford informs us that the 16 factor test comes from the Washington Supreme Court's decision in Yousoufian v. Office of Ron Sims, et al., 168 Wn.2d 444, 229 P.3d 735 (2010). Here is the link to the decision: http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/168wn2d/168wn2d0444.htm. There are 7 mitigating factors and 9 aggravating factors for a total of 16."

Byron Katsuyama on Jul 26, 2018 3:23 PM

"Can you please provide a link to the 16 factors? Thank you."

DeWayne Pitts on Jul 23, 2018 7:30 AM

2 comments on Agency Size Can Influence PRA Penalties

 more

Blog Archives

GO

Follow Our Blog