Washington Attorney General Nick Brown thinks the public too often waits too long to receive public records. He has therefore proposed changes to streamline the process. Alas, some public officials and organizations stand opposed.

Democracy cannot function in darkness. When voters approved the Public Records Act in 1972, they declared that what the government produces belongs to the people first, not the government.

The law unequivocally declares, “The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them.

The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.

The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created.”

Washington once had a stellar reputation among states for transparency. Not so much these days. If it is not state lawmakers devising creative means of evading their obligation to keep the public informed, it is agencies and localities dragging their feet when responding to records requests.

The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee found that the average response time for public records requests increased from 15 days in 2019 to 25 days in 2023. Simple requests for single documents can languish for months or even years while clerks deal with complex requests that came in before them.

A separate report by the Washington Coalition for Open Government reinforced those findings. It noted, “Agencies and local governments often use delays and other bureaucratic hurdles to obstruct requesters.”

Brown proposes that records custodians establish a triage system for reviewing public records when they come in. If a request is simple and requires providing a single, easily produced record, officials would be expected to deliver it within five days.

He also wants government officials to curb the practice of notifying third parties about public records requests that mention them. That process delays things and encourages other departments or individuals to try to block releases.

Brown suggests record keepers would only issue notices if there is a reasonable belief that records fall under a legal exemption.

There are plenty of exemptions from which to choose. When voters approved the Public Records Act, it had only 10 exemptions, primarily related to privacy concerns. Today more than 650 individual statutes and subsections limit what the public may see.

Brown’s changes would fall under the model rules for government bodies. They are not legally binding, but they are strong guidelines that agencies and localities generally follow.

In a separate move, Brown also announced the creation of the attorney general’s office’s first chief transparency counsel.

That person will lead a unit focused on transparency laws. At last, there will be a clear point person in the office to help the public and government navigate records laws.

These are all reasonable reforms that will help make government accessible and accountable to Washingtonians. Open government advocates have endorsed them, as does this editorial board.

Yet at a recent hearing on the new model rules, some government officials and their allies spoke against them. A spokesperson for the Association of Washington Cities warned that they “contradict the spirit and letter of the law.” A representative from the Washington State Transit Association argued that they go too far. City clerks, public records officers and lawyers also raised concerns.

The critics say that the Legislature should make these sorts of changes. That’s rich given that the Legislature has spent decades systematically weakening public records laws, often at the behest of the sorts of people now complaining. Lawmakers add an average of 17 new exemptions to public records laws annually. Count us skeptical that they will suddenly step up and make government more transparent.

Brown deserves credit for attempting to bolster Washington’s commitment to open government. As for the critics and their advocates, they should explain to Washingtonians whose interests they are protecting, because it clearly is not the public’s.