Five Public Records Act Questions Every Washington City Should Be Asking

Washington’s Public Records Act is one of the broadest disclosure laws in the country — and one of the most costly to get wrong. A single disputed request can generate tens of thousands of dollars in statutory penalties, attorney fees, and litigation costs. Yet many cities operate without a comprehensive response framework, leaving staff to make legal judgment calls without clear guidance or current training.

The result is predictable: inconsistent responses, missed deadlines, indefensible redactions, and compliance gaps that don’t surface until a requestor files suit.

If you’re a city administrator, clerk, or attorney responsible for PRA compliance, these five diagnostic questions will help you identify vulnerabilities in your current approach — before they become expensive problems.

1. Does your city have a written Public Records Act response procedure?

Too many cities handle records requests on an ad hoc basis. A request arrives, gets forwarded around internally, and staff piece together a response based on institutional memory and best guesses. This approach creates inconsistency, delays, and compliance exposure.

A defensible written procedure should specify:

•         Who receives requests and how they are logged

•         Response timelines and acknowledgment protocols

•         The review and approval chain for releases

•         Escalation procedures for complex or high-volume requests

Without a documented process, your city has no defensible framework if a requestor challenges your response timeline or alleges selective disclosure. The absence of a procedure is itself the problem — not just the mistakes it enables.

2. How is exemption identification handled — and by whom?

Exemption analysis is not a clerical task. It requires legal judgment, familiarity with the statutory framework, and an understanding of case law interpreting the exemptions under RCW 42.56. Yet in many cities, exemption calls are being made by staff who have never been trained on the statute.

Consider whether your city can answer these questions with confidence:

• Who reviews documents for exemptions before release?

• Do they understand the difference between discretionary and mandatory exemptions?

• Can they articulate why a claimed exemption applies and whether it is defensible in litigation?

If not, you’re exposed to two equally dangerous outcomes: over-disclosure of genuinely exempt material, or under-disclosure that triggers penalties for improper withholding.

3. Who reviews redactions — and do they understand the concept of segregability?

Even when an exemption clearly applies, cities are required to release the non-exempt portions of responsive records. This is the segregability requirement, and it’s one of the most common sources of PRA violations.

Redactions must be precise, justified, and documented. Each redacted record should include a privilege log or exemption citation so the requestor understands the legal basis for withholding. Blanket redactions, over-redactions, and unexplained withholding will not survive scrutiny in litigation.

If the person handling your redactions cannot explain segregability or cite the specific exemption being invoked for each withholding, your city is carrying significant risk.

4. Is your records retention schedule current — and does it reflect actual practice?

A retention schedule is not a compliance formality. It establishes when records must be preserved and when they may lawfully be destroyed. If your schedule is outdated, inconsistent with how staff actually manage records, or unknown to key personnel, you are creating liability on multiple fronts.

Cities face penalties when:

•         Records are destroyed prematurely — before the applicable retention period expires

•         Records are destroyed after a PRA request has been received or litigation is reasonably anticipated

•         Retention practices diverge from the adopted schedule, creating the appearance of selective destruction

Review your retention schedule annually. Confirm it reflects the records your city actually creates and maintains. And train staff — not just on the schedule itself, but on the legal consequences of deviating from it.

5. When was the last time your staff received PRA training?

TThe PRA is a moving target. Courts issue new decisions interpreting the statute. The legislature amends disclosure obligations. Attorney General opinions clarify agency duties. If your clerks, department heads, and decision-makers haven’t received training in the past twelve months, they are operating on outdated knowledge — and outdated knowledge creates liability.

Effective, current training should cover:

•         The five-day acknowledgment requirement and statutory response timelines

•         The statutory exemptions and how to apply them correctly

•         Redaction procedures and segregability obligations

•         Email and electronic records management

•         Social media and text message retention requirements

•         What triggers a duty to preserve records (litigation holds)

One-time training is not sufficient. PRA compliance demands ongoing education and procedural reinforcement as the legal landscape evolves.

What This Means for Your City

If any of these questions raised concerns, your city may be carrying more compliance risk than you realize. PRA violations carry statutory penalties of up to $100 per day per record, plus the requestor’s attorney fees and costs. The financial exposure from a single contested request can be substantial — but the operational costs of a poorly managed records program are equally damaging: staff frustration, diverted resources, reputational harm, and ongoing conflict with requestors and council.

The good news is that these gaps are fixable. A structured response framework, clear training protocols, and access to legal guidance can transform your city’s records program from a liability into a well-functioning system that builds public trust.

Need support reviewing your city’s Public Records Act compliance framework?

Sound Solutions Law provides Public Records Act response strategy, exemption analysis, staff training, and litigation risk mitigation for Washington cities and public agencies.www.soundsolutionslaw.com

Schedule a consultation to discuss your city's needs.

 Kyla S. Bond is the founder of Sound Solutions Law, PLLC, a Washington municipal law practice serving cities and public agencies. She brings more than a decade of experience advising local governments on public records compliance, governance, and open government law.