Ask MRSC - Public Records & PRA

If this involves a pending records request, we must defer to the legal advice of your town attorney. MRSC can provide general education on the topic.

If you are unsure about what specific records a requestor is seeking, we encourage agencies to make a request for clarification as allowed by RCW 42.56.520(1)(d). You can explain that you are unsure about exactly what they mean by the “town council meeting records,” but then explain what you think it means and the types of records you would provide under your own interpretation – but invite them to clarify.

We recommend that an agency put a deadline on a request for clarification, such as “If you have not responded to our request for clarification by [date], we will assume you do not want to provide clarification and as such, we will process your request as submitted.” If portions of the request are clear, an agency should respond to those portions while waiting for clarification on the unclear sections.

In this case, if you never get a clarification, you might consider producing all the types of records included in the list of the CORE records retention schedule for governing body meetings (see DAN GS50-05A-13 on page 43):

Governing/Executive/Policy-Setting Body Records

Records documenting the actions, meetings and membership of the agency’s governing body, executive management team and other policy-setting/decision-making boards, committees, commissions, councils, task forces, etc.

Also includes interagency/national/external policy-setting/decision-making bodies for which the agency acts as secretary/keeper of the official records.

Includes, but is not limited to:

• Agendas, meeting/agenda packets (briefs, reference materials, documents for approval, etc.);
• Speaker sign-up, written testimony;
• Audio/visual recordings and transcripts of proceedings;
• Minutes;
• Appointment, reappointment, and termination correspondence/communications;
• Selected images/photographs showing the committee membership at particular points in time (such as board/committee portraits, etc.) and/or significant stages of the board/committee’s life.

Public records authorities generally require agencies to allow and facilitate public inspections of their records. RCW 42.56.090 mandates that “public records shall be available for inspection and copying during the customary office hours of the agency.” WAC 44-14-040(8)(a) similarly provides: “consistent with other demands, the (name of agency) shall promptly provide space to inspect public records.” Further, WAC 44-14-04004(2) allows requestors to specify their preferred method of records access, which can include inspection. Individual requestors might seek or agree to receive records through methods other than inspection, but if they don’t the agency should have physical inspection space available.

But the authorities do not specify where that physical records inspection space must be. WAC 44-14-04005(2) says “often an agency will provide the records in a conference room or other office area,” but it doesn’t further specify a location. RCW 42.56.520(1)(b) requires agency computer access for digital records in some instances, but again it does not specify the computer’s location. A records inspection location ultimately cannot excessively interfere with essential agency functions. See WAC 44-14-04005(2).

A public space in an agency’s building will probably qualify as an allowable “other office area” for records inspections. But it should be reasonably free from distractions and interruptions to facilitate the requestor’s inspection and to reduce claims that the agency effectively denied records access by choosing an impractical or unsuitable location.

Note also that RCW 42.56.100 requires agencies to adopt rules and regulations related to processing public records requests. Since this records inspection request is a new one for the agency, this might be a good opportunity to review and enact applicable rules to address similar requests in the future.

The agency’s counsel can give a definitive opinion and advice on the legal feasibility of any specific chosen records inspection location, but we hope this general guidance helps.

The fact that a public records requestor may have used ChatGPT or another artificial intelligence (AI) tool to write or assist in writing a records request does not mean that a public agency can deny the request. If it is a request for identifiable records, it is a legitimate request and must be treated as any other request.

The provision at RCW 42.56.080(3) related to “bot requests” was passed by the legislature to address a specific practice of an agency receiving multiple computer-generated requests in a 24-hour period. It reads:

An agency may deny a bot request that is one of multiple requests from the requestor to the agency within a twenty-four hour period, if the agency establishes that responding to the multiple requests would cause excessive interference with other essential functions of the agency. For purposes of this subsection, "bot request" means a request for public records that an agency reasonably believes was automatically generated by a computer program or script.

This provision has limited applicability and would not cover this scenario where a person has utilized AI to draft or assist in drafting a request.

If the request is difficult to understand, you can seek clarification from the requestor. That is one option for an agency’s “five-day response”. See RCW 42.56.520(d). You could also reach out to the requestor to see if they may want to narrow the request—although this is not a sufficient “five-day response” per RCW 42.56.520, and a requestor is not obligated to do so. Even if you seek clarification on parts of the request, you should begin fulfilling the parts that are clear.

The statute associated with charging for body camera footage is limited to “the reasonable costs of redacting, altering, distorting, pixelating, suppressing, or otherwise obscuring any portion of the body worn camera recording prior to disclosure only to the extent necessary to comply with the exemptions in this chapter.” See RCW 42.56.240(14)(f)(i).

It does not authorize charging for the time spent reviewing body worn camera footage to determine whether any exemptions might apply in the first place.

If your city has adopted copy costs, you can still charge by the gigabyte for the footage. See RCW 42.56.120(2)(b)(iv).

The retention obligations for public records applies regardless of the original location of the record – whether on an agency-issued phone or a personal phone. The phone logs themselves would typically fall within Section 2.5 of the CORE retention schedule under “Audit Trails and System Usage Monitoring”, Disposition Authority Number GS2010-003, Rev. 2. The retention value is “retain until no longer needed for agency business, then destroy.” The retention values of the text messages, photos, and voicemail recordings/transcriptions would depend on the content of those messages and recordings/transcriptions.

The State Archivist provides technical guidance on how best to capture and retain Electronic Records. The guidance on Text Messages is particularly useful and provides different allowable options.

Photos should be eventually stored somewhere other than on the individual phone (like in the official files for the reason the photos were taken in the first place)—but perhaps an agency-controlled cloud/app on the individual phones will make control over the storage of the photos easier.

Call logs are a little harder to capture before you have a request. It is often easier to wait to capture that information until you have an actual pending request. There are third-party apps that do a better job of capturing all the data of a call. Screenshots are also an option. Often, the easiest way may be to reach out to the service provider and obtain a log from them—although it is likely limited to traditional phone calls and not calls that occur via other apps.

As for your question about after separation—for agency-provided phones, they should still be in your possession after the employee separates. You should work with IT staff to capture all public records that have a retention value in a separate location before it is wiped and re-issued to a new employee.

For personal phones or agency-issued phones that employees are allowed to keep after separation, the departing employee is required to turn over all public records at the time of separation. Again, work with your IT staff to capture a copy of all public records with a retention value before releasing the employee from any obligations. MRSC also recommends having them sign a declaration similar to a Nissen Affidavit about what actions they took to turn over all public records on their personal device.

These records would be considered public records, as they relate to one of the agency’s assets. Therefore, you would need to consult the applicable records retention schedule to determine if the records need to be maintained after the sale of the truck.

We checked the Common Records (CORE) v.5.0 (Oct 2024) schedule applicable to local governments. It looks like maintenance and repair records related to agency assets are to be retained for three years after the completion of the work and then they may be destroyed (see CORE, p. 95, Section 2.7, Disposition Authority Number (DAN) GS2012-040, Rev. 1). There is another disposition number for operating manuals at Section 2.8, p. 96. For operating manuals, an agency retains them until they are superseded, or disposal (e.g., sale) of the assets occurs, and then they can be destroyed or transferred to the new owner.

As a practical matter, I would expect that the new owner of the fire truck would like a copy of the maintenance and repair records, so they understand what work has been done on the truck. I would suggest retaining any records that fall within the applicable retention period and providing a copy of those records to the new owner.

Court cases like Hikel v. City of Lynnwood (2016) generally require agencies to give requestors a response estimate anytime the initial 5-day response is anything other than giving or denying the requested records. RCW 42.56.520(1)(d) alters the requirement slightly for unclear requests by requiring an agency response estimate “to the greatest extent possible” if an unclear request goes unclarified. However, it is possible that a request is so unclear that a reasonable response estimate simply cannot be provided without clarification. But that would be unusual, and agencies must estimate their response, if possible, even if a request’s lack of clarity makes it challenging or uncertain. While that may seem daunting, keep in mind that agencies are not required to strictly adhere to their reasonable response estimates and can change them depending on clarification the requestor provides. See, e.g., Andrews v. Washington State Patrol (2014). Also, the need to clarify a request can extend an agency’s response time. See RCW 42.56.520(2).

An agency can treat a request as abandoned if the requestor’s failure to timely clarify it leaves it totally objectively unclear. You technically are not required to respond to such abandoned requests but should still send the requestor a closing letter explaining the abandonment and corresponding lack of agency response. See RCW 42.56.520(3)(b), WAC 44-14-040(12), and WAC 44-14-04003(8). Note that if any parts of a request are clear you still must respond to those parts even if the unclear parts end up unclarified and unresponded to. MRSC has also said that agencies should reserve “abandonment” for truly totally unclear and unclarified requests. If an agency can reasonably guess the records a requestor seeks, it needs to process the request accordingly.

There is no requestor clarification deadline in the PRA itself, but the AG model PRA rules, WAC 44-14-04003(8), state:

If the requestor fails to clarify an entirely unclear request, the agency need not respond to it further (RCW 42.56.520). However, an agency must respond to those parts of a request that are clear. If the requestor does not respond to the agency's request for a clarification within thirty days of the agency's request or other specified time, the agency may consider the request abandoned. If the agency considers the request abandoned, it should send a closing letter to the requestor if it has not already explained when it will close a request due to lack of response by the requestor. [Emphasis added]

These types of AI summaries fall under the classification of generative AI (GenAI). Agencies have an obligation to produce public records that exist on the date of the request, and it is generally accepted that GenAI chat histories and meeting summaries are public records. The State Archives has come out with guidance on the retention of GenAI records: Records Management Advice (2024)

Importantly, not all GenAI records are considered transitory, so the agency must consider the purpose of the record when determining how long to retain the record. Looking at the Local Government Common Records Retention Schedule (CORE), the following retention periods may apply:

• For formal, organized meetings, DAN GS50-01-43, Meetings Staff and Internal Committees, Retain for 2 years after end of calendar year. This includes “Audio/visual recordings and transcripts of proceedings.”
• If the purpose of the meeting was merely to brainstorm/collaborate, then the agency may be able to determine that the generated summaries and notes were merely part of an informal exchange of ideas such as DAN GS2016-002, Brainstorming and Collaborating applies. This category of record can be destroyed once no longer needed.
• To the extent the agency is relying on the summaries to generate a more formal document, GS2016-009, Records Documented as Part of More Formalized Records may apply. These records must be retained until successful conversion into the more formal document.

The State Archivist is the best authority on the application of the retention schedules to specific uses, so we encourage you to reach out to them as well at recordsmanagement@sos.wa.gov.

Note that all agencies are encouraged to adopt AI policies which address the use, retention, and acknowledgement of use of GenAI. For examples, see our blog post, Open the Pod Bay Doors: Navigating the Intersection of Public Records and Generative AI, and the Artificial Intelligence section of our Information Technology Policies & Resources page. Whether you are required to indicate in a final document any use or reliance on GenAI will be a matter of local policy.

In general, a petition (including the associated signatures, addresses, and phone numbers) submitted to a city council or other governing body of a public agency, would fall within the broad definition of a “public record” in the Public Records Act (PRA). RCW 42.56.010(3) provides that public records are those that an agency prepares, owns, uses or retains.

There is not a specific exemption under the PRA related to signatures, addresses, or phone numbers on petitions, so the records at issue here must be made available to the PRA requester without redacting that information. Note that there is an exemption that applies to voter signatures on ballots (not petitions). See RCW 42.56.425.

Addressing a related issue, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Doe v. Reed (2010), rejected a constitutional challenge to the PRA, concluding that disclosure under the PRA of signatures on referendum petitions would not violate the First Amendment. In a subsequent decision, the federal district court for the Western District of Washington, in Doe v. Reed (W.D. Wash. 2011), rejected a constitutional challenge to the PRA related to public disclosure of such signatures. The district court referenced privacy arguments related to public disclosure of personal identifying information associated with the ballot proposition at issue (e.g., names and addresses of petition signers), but the court concluded that Washington State’s “undoubtedly important interest in disclosure [of such information via the PRA] prevails under exacting scrutiny.”

As always, we recommend discussing your question with the city attorney, as well. Our guidance is general and not a substitute for the advice of the city’s legal counsel.

The State Archives does allow for the destruction of paper records after scanning under certain conditions, and it largely depends on whether or not the records are designated “Archival” in the retention schedules. For guidance from the Washington State Archives, see their webpage on How to Scan/Image Records and Go Paperless.

If you have questions about specific records, staff at the State Archives are very helpful and can be reached via email at recordsmanagement@sos.wa.gov.

In short, yes—if councilmembers (or other agency personnel) possess public records that are responsive to an agency Public Records Act (PRA) request, they have a duty to turn the records over to the agency for review and potential production to the requestor. In the recent case Valderrama v. City of Sammamish (2024), the court held (with emphasis added):

If an employee stores or is in control of agency records, we must interpret the PRA to balance the employee's privacy rights with the public's interest in government accountability. So, the onus remains with an agency to perform an adequate search for records, but the “agency employees are responsible for searching their files, devices, and accounts for records responsive” to a PRA request. Employees must produce responsive public records to the employer agency, and the agency then determines whether any of the records are exempt from production and discloses the records to the requestor.

When agency personnel possess responsive records outside the agency (for example, on a personal phone or computer), the case Nissen v. Pierce County (2015) establishes the typical process: the agency requests that the councilmember search their own personal devices for the records and then sign an affidavit about the records search and production to the agency.

If for some reason an agency official or staff refuses to search their devices, the Valderrama v. City of Sammamish case establishes that an agency’s good faith “search and affidavit” request from records-possessing personnel satisfies the agency’s record search obligation. The decision supports the conclusion that agencies are not required to take further legal action against personnel that refuse to cooperate with agency record production efforts.

With that said, a refusal to cooperate could have serious implications. For example, failing to produce requested records could lead to legal action against the agency, with corresponding legal consequences and “bad press” for potentially all involved. For a councilmember personally, knowingly “concealing” public records could also lead to criminal penalties under RCW 40.16.020.

In short, no. Because the councilmembers are using personal email accounts to conduct town business there is no exemption under the PRA that would allow you to redact those email addresses. So, if town-related email correspondence written from those addresses is responsive to a request for public records, those would need to be produced without redacting the email addresses.

We highly recommend that an agency assign official email addresses to its staff and officials rather than have them use their personal email addresses. Doing so makes it easier to comply with record retention and public records requirements.

For additional information, see MRSC’s blog post, Private Lives of Public Employees: The PRA Implications of Working for the Government.

Under the Public Records Act (PRA), photographs of employees are generally exempt from disclosure, except when requested by the media. See RCW 42.56.250(1)(h):

Photographs and month and year of birth in the personnel files of employees or volunteers of a public agency, including employees and workers of criminal justice agencies as defined in RCW 10.97.030. The news media, as defined in RCW 5.68.010(5), shall have access to the photographs and full date of birth. For the purposes of this subsection (1)(h), news media does not include any person or organization of persons in the custody of a criminal justice agency as defined in RCW 10.97.030; […]

News media is defined in RCW 5.68.010(5) as:

(5) The term "news media" means:

(a) Any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book publisher, news agency, wire service, radio or television station or network, cable or satellite station or network, or audio or audiovisual production company, or any entity that is in the regular business of news gathering and disseminating news or information to the public by any means, including, but not limited to, print, broadcast, photographic, mechanical, internet, or electronic distribution;

(b) Any person who is or has been an employee, agent, or independent contractor of any entity listed in (a) of this subsection, who is or has been engaged in bona fide news gathering for such entity, and who obtained or prepared the news or information that is sought while serving in that capacity; or

(c) Any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of the entities listed in (a) or (b) of this subsection to the extent that the subpoena or other compulsory process seeks news or information described in subsection (1) of this section.

Typically, a public agency is not allowed to inquire about the identity of a requestor unless a statute “exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records to certain persons.” See RCW 42.56.080(1). In this case, the agency would be allowed to inquire about the identity of the requestor sufficiently to determine whether or not they meet the definition of “news media” to qualify for the exception to the exemption. So, a public agency may require a requestor to prove they are an employee, agent, or independent contractor of a news entity in the list in this statute. There is a recent State Supreme Court case that held that ID badges are exempt from disclosure under RCW 42.56.250(1)(h) [formerly RCW 42.56.250(8) but renumbered/ordered)] unless the requestor is news media. See Green v. Pierce County (2021).

RCW 42.56.250 (2) requires mandatory notice to employees, and their union representatives, if any:

(2) Upon receipt of a request for information located exclusively in an employee's personnel, payroll, supervisor, or training file, the agency must provide notice to the employee, to any union representing the employee, and to the requestor. The notice must state:

(a) The date of the request;

(b) The nature of the requested record relating to the employee;

(c) That the agency will release any information in the record which is not exempt from the disclosure requirements of this chapter at least ten days from the date the notice is made; and (d) That the employee may seek to enjoin release of the records under RCW 42.56.540.

The starting point is that a lease agreement with a local government, including a public port district, is a public record. There is not an exemption in the Public Records Act (PRA) that is specific to personal information contained in such leases. However, certain financial information including account numbers are exempt under RCW 42.56.230(5). This provision exempts credit card numbers, debit card numbers, electronic check numbers, card expiration dates, or bank or other financial information, including social security numbers, as defined in RCW 9.35.005. “Other financial information” includes account numbers and balances, transaction information, codes, passwords, and other information held for account access or transaction initiation.

So, if the leases contained protected personal information (PPI) such as financial account information or social security numbers, then those should be redacted. For addresses, phone numbers and email addresses, if they are used in the contract even if they include a person’s residential information, then they will probably not be exempt.

For additional information, see our page on Exemptions and Prohibitions for Local Government Records.

RCW 42.56.520 requires that the initial response occur “within five business days of receiving a public records request.” MRSC advises that any requests that come in during non-business hours are not “received” until the start of the next business day (which would then trigger the five-day clock). We recommend articulating this in the locally adopted PRA policies so a potential requestor is clear about how after-hours requests will be treated. See the Attorney General Model Rule WAC 44-14-03006, regarding form of requests.

The public records log is subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act (PRA). RCW 40.14.026(4) provides (with emphasis added):

Each agency shall maintain a log of public records requests submitted to and processed by the agency, which shall include but not be limited to the following information for each request: The identity of the requestor if provided by the requestor, the date the request was received, the text of the original request, a description of the records produced in response to the request, a description of the records redacted or withheld and the reasons therefor, and the date of the final disposition of the request. The log must be retained by the agency in accordance with the relevant record retention schedule established under this chapter, and shall be a public record subject to disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW.

There is not an exemption that would apply that would allow an agency to redact names, emails, or phone numbers of individuals submitting requests. The requests themselves are public records subject to disclosure, along with the information voluntarily submitted by the requestor. Note that if there is credit card or other personal information such as social security numbers protected under RCW 42.56.230(5), then that information could be redacted. However, it is unlikely that information would be included in a log or records request.

Finally, an agency cannot provide a requestor a list of individuals if it is to be used for commercial purposes. An agency has a duty to investigate if it believes the requestor may be asking for a list for commercial purposes. See this Public Records Act FAQ, How should an agency proceed if it receives a request for lists of individuals?

The information submitted at a public meeting on a public comment sign-up sheet is subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act (PRA). There is no applicable exemption for the citizen phone numbers. Some agencies include a notice on their sign-up sheets that the information provided is subject to disclosure under the PRA. Below are a few examples of such disclaimers:

Kitsap County Public Comment Guidelines:

All written comments, sign up sheets, meeting minutes and all other material presented at a board meeting are considered public documents in compliance with open meeting and public record laws. All public documents will be available to the general public. Meetings are also recorded for the public record by Bremerton-Kitsap Access Television (BKAT) and are regularly aired on local cable access channels.

Port of Seattle Public Comment at Port Commission Meetings:

Your Comment is a Public Record
Recorded comments, the identity of speakers, and meeting sign-in sheets are public records subject to disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW, and the names of speakers are recorded in the meeting minutes.

Tacoma Written Public Comments – Comments will be compiled and sent to the City Council and posted as public record on the City’s web page at cityoftacoma.org/writtencomments. The documents on this page enable the public to view the written comments submitted on the day of the City Council meeting. Their page also states the following:

Please note that the posted comments are not edited and will include all content and information submitted, which, for comments submitted as email, will include the email address from which it was sent.

Other times, an agency will limit what information it requests on sign-up sheets so as not to collect too much personal information from citizens that they may not want made public. For example, sometimes agencies will only request a person’s name and jurisdiction of residence so the citizen’s address and phone number do not appear on the sign-up sheet.

The exemptions in the PRA that allow the redaction of personal information are mostly focused on the personal information of employees or officials of the public agency (although not exclusively). For more information, see the section on Employee/Official Personal Information on MRSC’s Exemptions and Prohibitions for Local Government Records page.

I assume you are talking about COVID-19 vaccine exemptions that would have been granted as medical or religious accommodations. We talk about the legal basis for accommodations in our blog post, Vaccine Mandates: Accommodating Disability and Religious Belief Exemptions.

Under the Local Government Common Retention (CORE) schedule, DAN GS50-04C-01: Civil Rights – Compliance (Section 504 Accommodations) would apply to the medical exemptions which requires records to be retained for six years after completion of the accommodation. Records related to religious accommodations would be subject to DAN GS2011-171: Civil Rights – Compliance, which is six years after the end of the calendar year.

These retention periods are based on the statute of limitations for someone to bring a lawsuit claiming their civil rights were violated. So, it is important to retain these records not only to comply with the legal retention requirements but also, so they are available in the event your agency is sued.

There are a couple of other retention requirements that are specific to COVID-related records, but they are limited to the following:

• DAN GS2020-009 – Security Monitoring – Employee and Public Access (COVID-19 Checks/Logs)
• DAN GS2021-010 – COVID-19 Vaccination Status Verification Record

RCW 42.56.520 requires prompt responses after receiving a public records request. If an agency isn’t providing the records within five-days, it can write a letter within that timeframe providing “a reasonable estimate of the time the agency […] will require to respond to the request.” RCW 42.56.520(1)(c).

Assuming the PRO is not on an extended vacation, the reasonable time estimate for response could factor in the PRO’s upcoming (or ongoing) leave/absence, and the 5-day letter could include this in the explanation for the time estimate. If the PRO is gone for an extended leave, then the agency should assign another staff member the responsibility of gathering records and responding to the requests, because an agency’s response time must be reasonable. Note that an agency must designate a staff member to provide the initial 5-day initial response letter, as that is a firm timeline established in the statute with no exceptions.

What is a reasonable amount of time to respond to a PRA request will vary from agency to agency and request to request, so there is no bright-line rule for reasonableness (e.g., 30 days). If the agency cannot fulfill the request within the time that the agency has estimated in its initial letter, the agency should communicate with the requester that additional time is required to fulfill the request based on specified criteria. See the Attorney General’s PRA Model Rules at WAC 44-14-04003(11). As also stated in the Model Rules at WAC 44-14-04003(7):

An agency should roughly calculate the time it will take to respond to the request and send estimates of varying lengths, as appropriate. Some very large requests can legitimately take months or longer to fully provide. There is no standard amount of time for fulfilling a request so reasonable estimates should vary.

The time it will take for an agency to fulfill a request will depend upon many factors, including the size and complexity of the request and the agency’s resources. See WAC 44-14-04001. It is a good idea for an agency to document how and why it came up with its time estimate. If staffing resources are low or unavailable, the agency could communicate that with the requestor and if challenged, it could at least show a basis for its time estimate. The Model Rules at WAC 44-14-04003(7) states:

While not required, in order to avoid unnecessary litigation over the reasonableness of an estimate, an agency could briefly explain to the requestor the basis for the estimate in the initial response. The explanation need not be elaborate but should allow the requestor to make a threshold determination of whether he or she should question that estimate further or has a basis to seek judicial review of the reasonableness of the estimate.

Public agencies are required by law to adopt their own local public records policies (RCW 42.56.040). The agency’s policy should ideally address what happens when the PRO is on leave (e.g., assigning alternate staff members to process and fulfill requests). We recommend that an agency maintain a separate email for PRA requests that is accessible by multiple people in case the PRO or person charged with responding to requests is out of the office. For more information, you may also want to review our Public Records Act page, particularly the pages on Basic Procedural Requirements, Responding to Public Records Requests, Searching and Producing Public Records, Managing Electronic Records, and Examples of PRA Policies.

It depends on whether the agency converted a hard copy record into a PDF for the requestor, or whether it is a pre-existing 100-page PDF record already in electronic format. In general, if the agency scans a paper document into a PDF electronic document, the agency can charge 10 cents per page for scanning the document. However, if this is a pre-existing 100-page electronic PDF file, then the agency can charge 5 cents per four electronic files/attachments (that PDF would be considered one electronic file). See RCW 42.56.120(2)(b).

MRSC has a webpage on Copying Charges for Public Records that includes a link to this one-page summary of the fee charges allowed by the PRA prepared by the Attorney General’s Office. If you have questions about charges for a particular request, we recommend asking the agency attorney who will be in the best position to review your local policies and the records related to the specific request.

Regardless of any markings or how the letter got in the hands of the elected official, if the content of the letter pertains to the conduct of government, it is a public record. Whether an exemption applies is a separate question, but someone placing the words “confidential” on an envelope does not relieve an agency of the obligation to make public records available for inspection or copying. You could consider giving third party notice to sender who could then try to seek an injunction to prevent the letter’s release.

The preliminary draft exemption only applies to pre-decisional policy recommendations and opinions. It does not apply to raw factual data or the implementation of the policy. For a more thorough discussion, please see our 2016 blog post Explaining the PRA's Deliberative Process Exemption. Based on the information provided, it is unlikely the deliberative process exemption could be applied to all or even part of the draft investigation report.

However, depending on the nature of the violations, consider looking at RCW 42.56.250(6):

Investigative records compiled by an employing agency in connection with an investigation of a possible unfair practice under Chapter 49.60 RCW or of a possible violation of other federal, state, or local laws or an employing agency's internal policies prohibiting discrimination or harassment in employment. Records are exempt in their entirety while the investigation is active and ongoing. After the agency has notified the complaining employee of the outcome of the investigation, the records may be disclosed only if the names of complainants, other accusers, and witnesses are redacted, unless a complainant, other accuser, or witness has consented to the disclosure of his or her name. The employing agency must inform a complainant, other accuser, or witness that his or her name will be redacted from the investigation records unless he or she consents to disclosure;

Until you have informed the employee of the final decision, the records are exempt in their entirety. And even after the investigation is final, certain names must be redacted. I suspect this exemption is more likely to apply to your documents at issue.

There are a few records that local governments are required or highly encouraged to post online if they are able. Here are the ones that MRSC has previously identified, but there may be others:

• Agendas for meetings must be posted online 24 hours in advance unless the jurisdiction is so small it does not meet the statutory thresholds in RCW 42.30.077 and RCW 42.30.080. Public agencies are encouraged to record and/or stream online meetings and make those recordings available online (RCW 42.30.220).
• Interlocal agreements must be filed with the county auditor or, alternatively, listed by subject on a public agency’s website (RCW 39.34.040). This includes “piggy-backing” on procurement contracts of another agency.
• Many jurisdictions meet their obligation to post a list of contracts awarded under the small works roster process as required by RCW 39.04.200 by posting online.
• Many jurisdictions meet some of their public participation obligations under the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.035, by posting notices online.
• We were unable to locate a specific state or federal requirement, but it appears there is a requirement or highly encouraged practice to post collective bargaining agreements online as well.

And more generally, see the legislative intent note to RCW 42.56.520:

The internet provides for instant access to public records at a significantly reduced cost to the agency and the public. Agencies are encouraged to make commonly requested records available on agency websites. When an agency has made records available on its website, members of the public with computer access should be encouraged to preserve taxpayer resources by accessing those records online.

We encourage jurisdictions to look over their public records requests for the last several years and see if there is a pattern of requests. If they see such a pattern, they should consider prioritizing placing those records online. It is common to receive a records request for previously received records requests and therefore some jurisdictions automatically post online what records requests they have received.

Additionally, as the world moves more and more online, when setting up a website we highly encourage agencies to choose a system that allows easy and efficient document uploading capacity.

In general, the answer is “no.” The only exemption applicable to dates of birth (DOBs) is RCW 42.56.250(8) for employee month and year of birth if found in personnel records.

Note, there are a few exemptions that protect a person’s identity – for example RCW 42.56.240(2) protects witnesses and victims of crimes when their life/safety/property is in danger or they request nondisclosure. But, on its own, the DOB would not personally identify an individual (if their name and other identifying information was redacted out). So, we don’t recommend relying on this exemption to redact a DOB.

We have a page on Disclosure of Personal Identifying Information in Law Enforcement Records. As you will see, it doesn’t mention DOBs. We also have a sample arrest report which shows what to redact and what not to redact.

There is no requirement that a public meeting be either audio or video recorded. However, the legislature recently amended the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) to, among other things, encourage agencies to record their meetings. RCW 42.30.220 provides:

(1) Public agencies are encouraged to make an audio or video recording of, or to provide an online streaming option for, all regular meetings of its governing body, and to make recordings of these meetings available online for a minimum of six months.
(2) This section does not alter a local government's recordkeeping requirements under chapter 42.56 RCW.

If the city does opt to record its meetings, those recordings are a public record and subject to disclosure upon request. The recordings must also be maintained according to the appropriate retention schedules. For meeting recordings, that would be a 6-year retention period. See the Local Government Common Records Retention Schedule (“CORE”), Disposition Authority Number (“DAN”) GS2012-027—Advisory Meetings and DAN GS50-05A-13—Governing/Executive Meetings.

Biometric data is exempt from disclosure under the PRA. See RCW 40.26.020 (5): “Biometric identifiers may not be disclosed under the public records act, chapter 42.56 RCW.”

Per RCW 40.26.020(7)(b):

"Biometric identifier" means any information, regardless of how it is captured, converted, stored, or shared, based on an individual's retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, DNA, or scan of hand or face geometry, except when such information is derived from: (i) Writing samples, written signatures, photographs, human biological samples used for valid scientific testing or screening, demographic data, tattoo descriptions, or physical descriptions such as height, weight, hair color, or eye color […].

If you have not asserted this exemption before, I encourage you to review it with your city attorney.

Here are several good resources:

• MRSC
  • Exemptions and Prohibitions for Local Government Records
  • Public Records Act FAQs - Exemptions and Prohibitions
• Washington State Attorney General’s Office (AGO)
  • Public Disclosure Statutes list of exemptions (and associated RCWs) (2021) – Prepared by the AGO’s Sunshine Committee.
  • Open Government Resource Manual Chapter 2: Public Records Act - Exemptions

Questions regarding exemptions and appropriate redactions related to specific records should be discussed with your agency attorney.