3 ms·

Can you provide more details? What is it about WA sunshine laws that make the government misunderstand a request, overestimate the cost of providing the request

Can you provide more details? What is it about WA sunshine laws that make the government misunderstand a request, overestimate the cost of providing the requested data, and then provide data that was not requested resulting in a breach of disclosure laws?

edoceo 8y ago
Remember when Shoreline had to pay out ~$500k because of mistakes they made on a FOIA request? https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/city-must-pay-538555-public-records-suit-over-e-mail-metadata https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/city-mu... It's because Washington agencies are required to cover reasonable attorneys fees for their opponents after losing open records lawsuits (one of the factors in our FOIA laws) So when Author sent the request to Seattle, they have this above cited example (and 100s of others across the the State) where a mistake could create a lawsuit the costs this loads of money. Did you know that the burden is on the agency to establish that its denial of inspection is proper? Did you know that the court could award you an amount between $5 and $100 a day for each day that access to the records was denied. So, if they don't give you everything you ask for you can sue. And it's easy (relatively) to win in WA for that because of our FOIA laws, then the agency has to pay for the lawyers and a penalty for delay of the records. For emails that means $5 * (Days of Delay) * (Number of Records). In short, if Seattle fucked up this FOIA request, denied or delayed -- that could have cost them millions of dollars. The author didn't understand that and (like a fool) blames the city and city-workers.
- danso 8y ago
  > In short, if Seattle fucked up this FOIA request, denied or delayed -- that could have cost them millions of dollars. Sorry, but that sounds like bullshit. The Washington law provides for agencies to take reasonable time on a request, especially one a request that is complicated and broad. In fact, unlike the FOI law for federal and other states, the Washington law does not proscribe the number of days that an agency must respond by, only that they be made "promptly": http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.56.520 http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.56.520 The city of Shoreline did not have to pay out $500K "because of mistakes they made on a FOIA request", not according to what you posted: > The City of Shoreline will have to reimburse $438,555 to cover the plaintiffs' costs as Washington agencies are required to cover reasonable attorneys fees for their opponents after losing open records lawsuits. Shoreline also agreed last year to pay a $100,000 statutory penalty after the court found that the city violated the state public records act. They paid $438K for fighting the request for seven years. They paid an additional $100K penalty because they were have found to violated the law. They did not pay for "mistakes", at least not mistakes in good faith.
  - edoceo 8y ago
    SEATTLE – The Washington Supreme Court has upheld a $502,000 penalty for Public Records Act violations by the state Department of Labor and Industries, in a ruling which affirms that judges can calculate such fines based on each page of a withheld record. Another example in WA, the kind of thing that scares public sector employees. I have direct personal experience with this, and direct knowledge of others receiving payout from government (in WA) for similar violations (almost had to start another suit this month). Your narrow interpretation is splitting hairs. The danger is real to the government workers executing these requests Edit: two more easy to find examples https://www.aclu.org/news/judge-fines-tacoma-police-department-withholding-public-records-about-invasive-surveillance https://www.aclu.org/news/judge-fines-tacoma-police-departme... www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/mar/24/justices-uphold-502000-public-records-fine-against/?amp-content=amp
    - danso 8y ago
      Sorry, I don't understand what your argument is. Both articles you link to refer to large penalties imposed against government agencies for withholding the requested records, over a long period of time. In your original comment [0], you suggested that employees feared of making innocent mistakes that would lead to open records lawsuits. None of the examples you've provided describe that situation. Instead, they involve agencies (and their lawyers) who have decided to refuse a request and fight it out in the courts. What does that have to do with being a danger to employees who handle these requests? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18267039 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18267039
      - edoceo 8y ago
        Well, spend some time with those employees, they know about these cases. This means that these employees frequently send more, faster to avoid a big public issue. The point is that individual people feel pressure and make decisions based on these articles (and many not so public cases) that in retrospect are not that great. And then some blogger makes foolish claims, as if it was incompetence rather than fear. I'll not comment further

edoceo 8y ago

Remember when Shoreline had to pay out ~$500k because of mistakes they made on a FOIA request? https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/city-must-pay-538555-public-records-suit-over-e-mail-metadata https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/city-mu... It's because Washington agencies are required to cover reasonable attorneys fees for their opponents after losing open records lawsuits (one of the factors in our FOIA laws) So when Author sent the request to Seattle, they have this above cited example (and 100s of others across the the State) where a mistake could create a lawsuit the costs this loads of money. Did you know that the burden is on the agency to establish that its denial of inspection is proper? Did you know that the court could award you an amount between $5 and $100 a day for each day that access to the records was denied. So, if they don't give you everything you ask for you can sue. And it's easy (relatively) to win in WA for that because of our FOIA laws, then the agency has to pay for the lawyers and a penalty for delay of the records. For emails that means $5 * (Days of Delay) * (Number of Records). In short, if Seattle fucked up this FOIA request, denied or delayed -- that could have cost them millions of dollars. The author didn't understand that and (like a fool) blames the city and city-workers.

danso 8y ago
> In short, if Seattle fucked up this FOIA request, denied or delayed -- that could have cost them millions of dollars. Sorry, but that sounds like bullshit. The Washington law provides for agencies to take reasonable time on a request, especially one a request that is complicated and broad. In fact, unlike the FOI law for federal and other states, the Washington law does not proscribe the number of days that an agency must respond by, only that they be made "promptly": http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.56.520 http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.56.520 The city of Shoreline did not have to pay out $500K "because of mistakes they made on a FOIA request", not according to what you posted: > The City of Shoreline will have to reimburse $438,555 to cover the plaintiffs' costs as Washington agencies are required to cover reasonable attorneys fees for their opponents after losing open records lawsuits. Shoreline also agreed last year to pay a $100,000 statutory penalty after the court found that the city violated the state public records act. They paid $438K for fighting the request for seven years. They paid an additional $100K penalty because they were have found to violated the law. They did not pay for "mistakes", at least not mistakes in good faith.
- edoceo 8y ago
  SEATTLE – The Washington Supreme Court has upheld a $502,000 penalty for Public Records Act violations by the state Department of Labor and Industries, in a ruling which affirms that judges can calculate such fines based on each page of a withheld record. Another example in WA, the kind of thing that scares public sector employees. I have direct personal experience with this, and direct knowledge of others receiving payout from government (in WA) for similar violations (almost had to start another suit this month). Your narrow interpretation is splitting hairs. The danger is real to the government workers executing these requests Edit: two more easy to find examples https://www.aclu.org/news/judge-fines-tacoma-police-department-withholding-public-records-about-invasive-surveillance https://www.aclu.org/news/judge-fines-tacoma-police-departme... www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/mar/24/justices-uphold-502000-public-records-fine-against/?amp-content=amp
  - danso 8y ago
    Sorry, I don't understand what your argument is. Both articles you link to refer to large penalties imposed against government agencies for withholding the requested records, over a long period of time. In your original comment [0], you suggested that employees feared of making innocent mistakes that would lead to open records lawsuits. None of the examples you've provided describe that situation. Instead, they involve agencies (and their lawyers) who have decided to refuse a request and fight it out in the courts. What does that have to do with being a danger to employees who handle these requests? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18267039 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18267039
    - edoceo 8y ago
      Well, spend some time with those employees, they know about these cases. This means that these employees frequently send more, faster to avoid a big public issue. The point is that individual people feel pressure and make decisions based on these articles (and many not so public cases) that in retrospect are not that great. And then some blogger makes foolish claims, as if it was incompetence rather than fear. I'll not comment further