WA should protect domestic violence survivors. But eroding records law isn’t the way | Opinion

Let’s be generous for a moment, and assume the best intentions. At least for the sake of argument, let’s suppose Washington lawmakers on both sides of the aisle really are trying to protect valued public employees who are survivors of domestic violence and other dangerous forms of harassment — a worthy cause that everyone can get behind.

Their chosen method to accomplish this goal during the current legislative session in Olympia?

It may have passed out of the state House March 6, but it simply doesn’t pass the common-sense test. Not even close.

What is now Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1533 would allow those who work for the state and its K-12 education system to file an affidavit declaring that they’re concerned about being the victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or other related crimes. Once that sworn statement was on file, it would essentially shield the employee from the state’s Public Records Act, preventing the disclosure of everything from phone numbers and email addresses to important disciplinary records. To continue to qualify for the exemption, the employee would need to file a new sworn statement every two years.

Passed with broad bipartisan support — and significant union backing — the bill’s primary sponsor is Tacoma Democrat Rep. Sharlett Mena, a newly elected local lawmaker who convincingly earned our support last election season.

But even if the bill’s objective is admirable — and a last-minute amendment championed by state Rep. Gerry Pollet made it slightly more palatable — the policy it contains remains ill-conceived and dangerous.

ESHB 1533 is a lousy idea that would endanger far more people than it would benefit, while vastly eroding Washington’s essential public records law in the process. Pollet’s amendment may have strengthened the original bill, requiring public employees who receive an exemption to submit a sworn statement every two years affirming that “there is a reasonable basis that the risk of domestic violence, sexual assault, sexual abuse, stalking, or harassment continues to exist,” but such a safeguard can’t overcome the original legislation’s fatal flaws.

Public records law is something journalists spend a lot of time thinking about, for good reason. The fact that Washington voters created the state’s Public Records Act via ballot initiative 50 years ago — making the records available to the public and the press by request, with limited, reasonable exceptions — has allowed us to effectively cover government big and small ever since.

Washington’s public records law has helped us to hold individuals and institutions accountable, while also protecting the interests of taxpayers. When lawmakers attempt to chip away at the law, as they’re unfortunately fond of doing — most recently through the creation of make-believe exemptions — we consider it our job in a functioning democracy to fight back. We hope you do, too.

But here’s the thing: You don’t have to be a cranky member of the media to understand why ESHB 1533 is so misguided and wrong. As a parent or simply a citizen, sit and ponder for a moment the ramifications, the potential abuses, and what passage of the bill would mean.

Shouldn’t the public have access to information on public employees like teachers and correctional officers, tasked with working with some of Washington’s most vulnerable populations? Shouldn’t you be able to find out if someone has faced discipline before, or — just as important — if there’s a pattern of institutional inaction?

Should there really be a mechanism for hiding all of this vital information from the press and the public, particularly one as easy as submitting a statement every couple of years?

Remember last year when The News Tribune reported on a Steilacoom High School math teacher accused of sexually harassing a student? Many of the documents our reporter relied on could have easily remained hidden if ESHB 1533 were law. Simply by filing paperwork, the teacher — who, according to records, had been warned and investigated by the district before, including one instance where he allegedly slid his hand beneath a student’s skirt, squeezed her bare thigh and said, “Good job” — could have kept his records a secret. In the process, the district’s response would have remained hidden, too.

How is that good for anyone, let alone victims?

Domestic violence, sexual assault and harassment are serious matters that deserve serious responses from lawmakers, but this isn’t that. Rather, ESHB 1533 appears to be an attempt to fix a problem that doesn’t actually exist, at least to the extent that it requires a major rewriting of state public records law. Filing a public records request is often a laborious, lengthy process that yields far less sensitive, personal information than a motivated stalker or harasser could readily find online, and state law already includes plenty of reasonable exemptions and protections. There are also other ways to protect victims of abuse and harassment, including current bills under consideration in Olympia — almost all of which would be far more effective than this one.

“This bill is both too far, and not enough,” Rowland Thompson, executive director of Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington, told The News Tribune Editorial Board on Tuesday. “It offers a protection that can’t truly be delivered to honest victims who are trying to hide, but it allows those who don’t want their checkered career of workplace issues to come to light.”

Here’s the bottom line:

If state lawmakers truly are concerned with protecting the public and public employees, they should try again — and put a stop to this bill while they still can. The best course of action would be letting it die in the state Senate. Short of that, it requires significant fixing.

We all want to prevent domestic violence and sexual assault.

But kneecapping the state’s public records law doesn’t help anyone.

The News Tribune Editorial Board is: Matt Driscoll, opinion editor; Stephanie Pedersen, TNT president and editor; Jim Walton, community representative; Amanda Figueroa, community representative; Kent Hojem, community representative.