WATEC-backed bill to exempt portal submissions from public records stirs privacy and transparency questions
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Senate Bill 6,164 would exempt information submitted to WATEC’s digital experience platform from public disclosure; supporters argued the change protects user privacy on the state portal, while open-records advocates warned the exemption risks overbreadth without clear definitions and retention rules.
Senate Bill 6,164 would exempt information submitted to Washington Technology Solutions (WATEC) for digital experience platform services — including the state’s unified portal (wa.gov) — from public disclosure under the Public Records Act.
Senator Jeff Wilson, the bill’s sponsor, said the exemption protects users who enter personal information into a portal and improves the customer experience. ‘‘For the users to be able to enter in once their personal information and that to be protected, I think that's paramount,’’ Wilson said.
Bill Kehoe, WATEC’s Director and the state Chief Information Officer, told the committee the measure would enhance privacy for portal users before data are routed to the agencies that transact with residents. ‘‘Wa.gov simplifies the user experience… This bill will enhance the customer experience while protecting individual privacy and confidentiality,’’ Kehoe said.
Media and open‑records coalition representatives raised concerns that the exemption is too generalized. Coalition representative Colette Wicks (appearing remotely) asked that the bill more precisely define which materials are exempt, clarify retention practices, and ensure oversight so a centralized technical provider does not inadvertently reduce public access.
Roland Thompson, representing newspaper and broadcaster associations, said the bill’s policy is not of great concern in principle but cautioned about practical disclosure implications and emphasized that, in many cases, records would remain disclosable at the agency level.
The committee closed the hearing after panel questions and public comment. Proponents emphasized privacy and user experience; opponents asked for narrower language and explicit oversight and retention provisions.
What’s next: the sponsor and staff will likely continue discussions with stakeholders to identify narrower statutory language and clarify retention and oversight provisions before any committee vote.