Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Case Updates Rulemaking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public Disclosure Commission denies petition to require one‑year public updates on investigations
Summary
The Washington State Public Disclosure Commission unanimously denied an April 24 rulemaking petition that would have required the agency to post a standard status update for any complaint pending more than one year, with commissioners citing investigatory‑exemption and resourcing concerns and directing staff to explore nonexempt alternatives.
The Washington State Public Disclosure Commission voted unanimously on May 28 to deny a rulemaking petition that would have required a public update for any complaint that remains under investigation after one year.
The petition, filed April 24, asked the commission to require staff to post a short summary at the one‑year mark describing preliminary findings, actions taken, reasons for delay and an estimated resolution date. Petitioner Connor Edwards, a professional campaign treasurer who frequently files complaints with the agency, told commissioners such updates would improve transparency and cited an 18‑month unresolved complaint he filed against The Walt Disney Company as evidence of delays. "When cases have been pending for more than a year with no update whatsoever, the public has a right to know in general terms what the agency is actually doing," Edwards said.
Staff and commissioners pushed back, saying the categories described in the petition risked disclosing protected investigatory material. "Some of the things being asked for are the type of internal investigatory information that would be exempt while the investigation is ongoing," staff counsel Sean Flint told the commission. Commissioners said revealing details about evidence gathering or communications with respondents could prejudice investigations or later adjudications.
Chair Jay Leach and other commissioners also emphasized practical limits. Commissioners noted heavy caseloads and a pattern of repeated filings by a small number of frequent filers that consume staff time. One commissioner urged using the existing enforcement‑reporting process to provide more aggregated or nonexempt information about older cases rather than a categorical rule that might undermine statutory exemptions.
The motion to deny said the petitioner had not articulated nonexempt information that the commission could readily provide by rule, and that large parts of the requested categories were protected under the investigatory exemption of the Public Records Act. The motion passed with five ayes and no nays.
The commission asked staff to explore alternative, nonexempt reporting options that could be incorporated into existing enforcement reports or the case review process and to circulate examples of other agencies' policies on settlement delegation and public case reporting.
What happens next: The petition was denied; staff will follow up on potential nonrule, procedural ways to provide additional, nonexempt case information in enforcement reports.
