By Donald W. Meyers

Yakima Herald-Republic

Lawmakers in Olympia are dealing with only a couple of public records bills this year, but those few worry open-government advocates.

Among the bills being watched is one that would redact the birthdates of public employees from public records.

“That’s the one we’re having the most heartburn over,” said Toby Nixon, president of the Washington Coalition for Open Government.

Proponents of Senate Bill 6079, including sponsor Sen. Patty Kuderer, D-Bellevue, say it would protect employees from identity theft and harassment.

The bill stems from a lawsuit between the state’s labor unions and the Freedom Foundation, which wanted to contact state employees to tell them how to stop paying dues. The birthdates would have helped the foundation cross-reference voting records to find mailing addresses of the state employees.

Opponents of the bill say it would hobble efforts by journalists and the public to know if a public employee has been charged with a criminal offense.

“We need public employee names with dates of birth to be able to check for pension fraud and discrepancies like retire-rehire, to check for the movement from school district to school district of teachers and coaches who have had misconduct with students,” said Rowland Thompson, executive director of the Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington.

Thompson and Nixon discount the identity theft arguments, noting that birthdates can easily be found in other places and that a name and a birthday are not enough to set up a bank account or open lines of credit in someone else’s name.

Another bill of concern is Senate Bill 6408, which would modify existing law regarding when and how video from police body cameras can be released to the public. The existing law — which is the result of a compromise among privacy advocates, the open government coalition and other open-records groups — is set to expire in 2019.

SB 6408 would remove the expiration date, making the law permanent.

Open government advocates support that provision, but are worried about other elements contained in the bill sponsored by Sen. Mike Padden, R-Spokane Valley.

Among other points, it would require people seeking a video to identify those involved in an incident, when and where it happened and the officer involved.

Nixon said there’s concern the bill would keep an existing provision requiring people requesting records pay for any editing to remove sensitive information from the video, as well as making it harder for someone who sues for access to recover attorney’s fees and penalties if they are successful.

To win fees, a judge must find that the agency deliberately withheld the video in violation of the law, rather than doing so in good faith.

Nixon worries that the rule could spread into other parts of the public records law, putting greater burdens on people challenging a records denial.

Rep. David Taylor, R-Moxee, believes the body-camera law is flawed because it still does not prohibit authorities from reviewing videos for evidence of crimes other than the one being initially investigated.

If investigators are going to do that, Taylor said, they would need to have a warrant.

And in a records issue that directly affects every state lawmaker, a Thurston County Superior Court judge ruled that lawmakers are subject to the Public Records Act. There are no fewer than three bills in the system — House Bills 2255 and 2886 and Senate Bill 6139 — that would address the issue.