Kenmore council gets PRA refresher from Attorney General consultant; officials warned of large fines and tighter closing rules

Melissa Drury, local government public records consultant with the Washington State Office of the Attorney General, told the Kenmore City Council that Washington’s Public Records Act aims to ‘‘let people see what’s behind the curtain’’ and that agencies must treat public‑records requests with consistent procedures and clear documentation.

Drury, who said she has worked on public records for roughly 13 years, highlighted penalties and practical compliance steps. She cited as an example a large judgment against the city of Tacoma that originally reached $2.6 million before being reduced on appeal, and warned that attorney fees can rapidly increase total liability. ‘‘If they win, then we do have to take care of those legal fees as well,’’ she said.

At the heart of Drury’s guidance was the PRA’s three‑part definition of a public record: a writing related to the conduct of government that is prepared, owned/used, or retained by the agency. She emphasized that the obligation to produce records can apply even to materials employees thought they had disposed of, and that retention schedules and State Archives transfers matter for custody and production.

Drury urged officials to document searches thoroughly—what fields were searched, which keywords were used, what devices or accounts were checked—because adequacy is judged by a standard of reasonableness rather than perfection. She also warned that personal devices can contain responsive communications: ‘‘If you are using a personal device or account to do City business, those records can be considered public records,’’ Drury said, while noting that courts protect certain personal privacy interests in device content.

On exemptions and redactions, Drury said agencies should presume openness and narrowly redact only protected information. She explained the deliberative‑process privilege that can apply to certain drafts and the requirement to provide redaction logs explaining the legal basis for withheld content. Third‑party notice procedures were also covered: where personnel or proprietary records are involved, the city typically notifies affected third parties and provides an opportunity (often 10–14 days) to seek court protection.

Drury described recent procedural changes affecting how agencies ‘‘close’’ requests: a simple ‘‘closed’’ stamp is no longer sufficient; agencies must send closing language that explains what was produced or withheld, why the request is closed and how the requester can seek follow‑up. She pointed to Cousins v. Department of Corrections as a case that influenced that practice.

Council members pressed for practical time frames during Q&A. Drury said many agencies build 20–30‑day windows for follow‑up questions into their workflows to accommodate multi‑installment productions and reviewer availability. She also advised that requests for interjurisdictional records should be routed to the proper custodian (for example, directing a Shoreline map request to Shoreline rather than trying to warmly transfer responsibility). The presentation closed with Drury urging council members to treat public‑records officers as the front line and to forward requests immediately so the 5‑day clock and required staff actions are tracked.

The training was presented as a refresher for council and staff; Drury offered to follow up on specific legal citations or retention questions at staff request. The council recessed for its regular meeting after the training.