Public Records Act - Changing Guidance & Opportunities for Port Feedback
Last fall, the Washington State Attorney General’s Office released proposed revisions to the Public Records Act (PRA) Model Rules. The Model Rules serve as advisory guidelines to promote uniformity and clarity in the public records process. While non-binding, they are intended to assist agencies in developing their own practices and rules for handling public records requests. Local agencies are encouraged to consider these Model Rules when establishing their procedures, and as such we could expect any updates to the Model Rules as potentially impacting the work of ports to comply with the PRA.
While WPPA and our members emphatically support transparency in government function and timely public records access, we expressed concerns about several of the proposed rule changes that could significantly impact port operations, particularly at ports with limited staff. This blog entry is intended to provide you with a quick summary of some of the key concerns in the proposed changes to the Model Rules. The full proposed revisions can be found here. WPPA’s full comment letter can be found here.
Key Concerns Raised by WPPA:
1. Conflicts with Existing Statutes
Some proposed changes diverge from the clear standards set forth in the PRA statute, RCW 42.56. For example, introducing the term “promptly” into the rules could create legal ambiguity. The PRA already establishes reasonable timelines for processing public records requests and adding new language without legislative backing risks creating confusion. We are concerned that these changes could impose new legal thresholds that are inconsistent with current law.
2. Funding Constraints and Unfunded Mandates
Ports operate on tight budgets, often with a single staff member handling public records requests alongside other duties. The proposed rules suggest implementing faster response methods and centralized systems, but without additional funding, these mandates would place a significant burden on smaller ports. Our comment letter emphasizes that any new operational requirements must come with appropriate financial support to ensure compliance.
3. Equity in Public Records Access
The PRA is built on the principle of providing equal access to public records for all requestors. The proposed rule changes suggest prioritizing “time-sensitive” requests or certain classes of requestors, such as media outlets. Our letter argues that this would undermine the PRA’s core value of fairness. Determining which requests are “time-sensitive” could be subjective and difficult for port staff to manage, leading to inconsistencies and potential legal challenges.
4. Protecting Privacy and Third-Party Rights
We also raised concerns about the proposed changes to third-party notifications and exemptions. Current statutes provide robust protections for individuals’ privacy and allow third parties to seek injunctions if disclosure could cause harm. The proposed revisions risk weakening these protections by reducing notification timelines, which could result in inadvertent disclosures of sensitive information.
5. Operational Challenges and Ambiguity
Our letter notes that several proposals introduce ambiguities or redundant requirements that could complicate public records processing. For example, changing the standard inspection time from 30 days to “an agreed period” introduces uncertainty, while installment-based delivery requirements could create inefficiencies. We are concerned that these changes might slow down records production rather than streamline it.
WPPA’s Recommendations
In our letter, we also included a concluding recommendation that substantive changes to public records processes should be pursued through legislative action rather than rulemaking. Legislative processes allow for broader stakeholder engagement and careful consideration of the potential impacts a change to PRA or the Model Rules could have on public agencies. Our recommendation to the AG’s office clearly laid out that any rule changes should:
Align closely with the language and intent of RCW 42.56.
Avoid imposing unfunded mandates or operational burdens.
Ensure equitable access to public records.
Maintain strong protections for third-party rights and privacy.
Conclusion
WPPA developed our comment letter in coordination with efforts by the Northwest Seaport Alliance, the Association of Washington Cities, and the Washington State Association of Counties. Our messaging sought to underscore the need for practical and balanced revisions to the PRA. Public ports across Washington are committed to transparency and accountability, but they also face unique operational challenges. Any changes to public records rules must consider these realities to ensure that ports can continue to serve their communities effectively. That is why WPPA staff have actively been engaged in conversations with groups like the Washington Coalition for Open Government and the Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington on ways that we can modify the PRA to better balance the need for open and transparent government with the limitations and constraints that ports face in responding to public records requests.
Additionally, WPPA has sent a survey to its members asking them about their experiences responding to public records requests. These survey results will inform our future advocacy and will help provide additional context for our discussions with stakeholder groups.
Further, we continue to develop a legislative proposal that would make a modest revision to the Public Records Act by requiring that a public records request be submitted to the agency’s designated records officer in order for the request to be subject to the five-day requirement for a response. The legislation will be finalized through continued stakeholder engagement over the legislative interim, and we continue to feel strongly that such a proposal will ensure that records requests are responded to in a timely manner.