Striking a balance: The public's right to know versus penalizing requesters

In a perfect world, people would just get along. There would be no misunderstandings, miscommunications or personality conflicts. Systems would be failure-proof and processes would flow smoothly.

We all know that’s the ideal, but certainly not the case.

Out-of-area public records requests into Grant County have gotten the attention of county Prosecutor Garth Dano. We invited Dano, County Commissioner Cindy Carter and other county employees who handle public records requests to this week’s Editorial Board meeting. County staff estimate they receive about 20 requests per week, most of which they deem legitimate and not out of the ordinary.

To Grant County’s credit, Herald newsroom employees largely get what they need when requesting public records from the courthouse. County employees do a great job of answering our requests quickly and courteously. We are in a position to know because we regularly deal with different county departments. We feel blessed that the right people are in place to process our requests skillfully. County employees and elected officials also respect our work to inform the public on a daily deadline.

Other municipalities aren’t so fortunate.

In Mesa, population about 489, in rural Franklin County, former Mayor Donna Zink won a public records case against the city in May. Mesa must pay Zink a $353,000 penalty for 33 infractions of the state Public Records Act, according to a Tri-City Herald article. The penalty is more than twice the city’s annual budget, the article states. Her records requests started in 2003 and stemmed from an increase in city fines for code problems. She requested city council minutes, code violation reports and resignation letters of public officials.

Locally, Zink filed a separate request to Grant County for addresses and information on all levels of sex offenders. Her request was processed and she was satisfied in some ways, according to James Mitchell, a civil deputy prosecutor with Grant County.

Some may credit Zink for obtaining the sex offender information, depending on what she plans to do with it, and if and how she plans on distributing it to the public. Others may say she wasted the time of county staff because local law enforcement already releases some sex offender information to the public.

Because of out-of-area requesters, Dano said he wants to have the state statute amended to add language that allows the county, if the request is voluminous or unusual, to petition the court for relief.

We can understand his frustration, but disagree. Who defines what’s voluminous or unusual? Who decides what’s legitimate for release? We think adding restrictions to the law could end up harming the public it’s intended to serve.

In general, our interest was piqued in local public records cases because a rare temporary injunction was granted in Grant County Superior Court in June preventing the release of records about misconduct allegations against a local school administrator. The records were released once the school administrator dropped his case. The allegations proved to be unfounded and the administrator was not charged with a crime. At any rate, our news-gathering was delayed because of the temporary injunction sealing the investigative reports. Despite the delay, we reported on the outcome of the case.

On a county level, it appears Grant County is working to stay current with the law. Earlier this year, Grant County commissioners updated the county’s public records code.

The biggest change was having to send a request to an outside entity if the county didn’t have the software to complete a redaction. For example, the county doesn’t have the software to redact information from body cams and needs help from an outside company.

Another update shows that court filings aren’t part of the open Public Records Act. Court information must be requested from the courts.

On a personal level, we (the public and media), need to remember that government employees are people too. Yes, there are public records laws they must follow and yes, they’re working to serve the public. Do they have to respond and produce records within a certain time frame? Of course. Do they often have other duties to balance in addition to their other work? In many cases, yes, especially in more rural counties and cities with fewer employees. Like many of us, they’re juggling plenty at work and wearing several hats.

Our reporters are trained to develop a rapport with sources, gatekeepers and public records officers to avoid communication breakdowns. Good communication, trust and respect are key to working well together.

We trust local government employees are working in the public’s best interest. Now we ask Garth Dano to continue that trend and not pursue changes to the state records law that would fail. News organizations need to work with as few roadblocks as possible when gathering the news. As the law is written now, some entities still struggle to understand it. Why complicate things?

— Editorial Board