Once I served on the Fircrest Metropolis Council in Pierce County, we handed legal guidelines, adopted budgets and debated coverage, all beneath the total glare of Washington’s Public Data Act. We weren’t particular. We had been accountable.
Throughout Washington, greater than 1,800 native legislative our bodies, from college boards to metropolis councils, govern beneath the identical sunshine legislation. They do their work in public, launch their data when requested and someway democracy doesn’t collapse. In truth, it thrives.
So why does the Washington Legislature insist it wants a particular constitutional proper to secrecy?
That’s the query on the heart of my lawsuit, Nixon v. State of Washington, now earlier than the Court docket of Appeals. As lead plaintiff, I’m difficult the Legislature’s sweeping declare that “legislative privilege” permits lawmakers to withhold inside communications (textual content messages, invoice technique memos, workers speaking factors, and many others.) from public data requests.
If upheld, this privilege would create a category of public officers who’re immune from the identical transparency obligations each different legislative physique in Washington has been topic to till now. It could defend backroom discussions about laws, together with selections that instantly have an effect on our rights, taxes and companies. It could render components of the Public Data Act meaningless.
I’ve additionally labored contained in the Capitol. For 5 years, I used to be a staffer within the Legislature. I perceive the pressures, the complexities and the necessity for candid dialogue. I additionally know this: The Legislature can govern successfully with out secrecy.
This month, a taxpayer-funded group that claims to serve all legislatures in a nonpartisan style, The Nationwide Convention of State Legislatures, filed a quick in courtroom backing the Washington Legislature’s secrecy declare. The convention’s argument mirrors the one already made by legislative management: that inside deliberations are too delicate to share with the general public. That transparency would someway harm the lawmaking course of.
If different legislative our bodies can get the job performed beneath such scrutiny, what makes the state Legislature so uniquely fragile? Neither legislative leaders nor NCSL has put forth a justifiable cause for this.
I’ve been within the room the place coverage is made. I’ve negotiated controversial points. I’ve answered to constituents. I did all of it with out hiding behind privilege. College boards, port commissions and county councils throughout this state do the identical every day. If they will govern beneath the Public Data Act, so can the Legislature.
The concept lawmakers should be shielded from disclosure to do their jobs is an insult to public servants and to the general public. It implies that candor solely thrives in darkness, and that our elected officers are too fragile to deliberate if somebody would possibly learn their messages later. It’s a handy argument for anybody who doesn’t need their course of questioned, however it doesn’t maintain water in a democracy.
And right here’s what’s most harmful: If this privilege is upheld for the state Legislature, nothing would cease a neighborhood authorities from claiming the identical exemption. A metropolis council dealing with public strain over housing coverage might begin redacting emails. A college board in battle over curriculum might defend textual content chains. Little by little, the general public’s proper to know would erode.
This isn’t nearly one case. It’s about whether or not the general public has a proper to see how coverage will get made, or whether or not elected officers get to resolve what’s “too delicate” for the folks to deal with.
Washington’s Structure opens with a strong reality: “All political energy is inherent within the folks.” Legislative privilege turns that precept on its head.
There’s no query that inside deliberations might be messy. Concepts are floated and dropped. Methods shift, politics get entangled, however that’s exactly why we want transparency. It’s how we maintain energy accountable, not only for what legal guidelines get handed, however how and why they take form.
If lawmakers actually consider within the power and integrity of their course of, they need to be proud to let the general public see it. As a result of if they will’t do the folks’s work with out hiding it … perhaps they shouldn’t be doing it in any respect.
If you want to share your ideas, please submit a Letter to the Editor of not more than 200 phrases to be thought-about for publication in our Opinion part. Ship to: letters@seattletimes.com
