MRSC Inquiries

Public Records

What is the retention period for a video recording made by a camera in a police car for routine traffic stops?
The retention period for such video recordings is 90 days. This is provided in the Records Management Guidelines and General Records Retention Schedules for Law Enforcement Agencies of Washington State, 2001, provides in the section on "Evidence" (page 53, Series No. 9) that video tapes or other recordings from mobile units, when the recording does not relate to a specific case investigation (e.g., a routine traffic stop), the retention period is 90 days. After 90 days, the tape can be reused.
What is the retention period for a video recording made by a camera in a police car for routine traffic stops?
The retention period for such video recordings is 90 days. The Records Management Guidelines and General Records Retention Schedules for Law Enforcement Agencies of Washington State (2001) provides in the section on "Evidence" (page 53, Series No. 9) that video tapes or other recordings from mobile units, when the recording does not relate to a specific case.
Do cities and counties have an obligation under public records law to provide records that will be filed with or created by the city or county in the future?
No. As stated in WAC 44-14-04004(4)(a), part of the attorney general's office's "Model Rules for Public Records,":

An agency must only provide access to public records in existence at the time of the request. An agency is not obligated to supplement responses. Therefore, if a public record is created or comes into the possession of the agency after the request is received by the agency, it is not responsive to the request and need not be provided. A requestor must make a new request to obtain subsequently created public records.

See also, Smith v. Okanogan County, 100 Wn. App. 7, 14 (2000), holding that "an agency is not required to create a record which is otherwise nonexistent."
May a public records request be satisfied by directing the inquirer to a link on a web site?
The Model Rules for Public Records adopted by the Washington State Attorney General's Office (Ch. 44-14 WAC) state that an agency can provide access to public records by posting them on its web site. If the requestor does not have internet access, the agency may provide access to the record by allowing the requestor to view the record on a specific computer terminal at the agency open to the public. Despite the availability of the record on the agency web site, a requestor can still make a public records request and inspect the record or obtain a copy of it by paying the appropriate per-page copying charge.
Must city and county governments disclose private e-mail addresses found in correspondence it receives, or may it redact such information?
In our opinion, they must disclose such information. While the public disclosure statutes exempt the disclosure of residential addresses, such as the residential addresses of an agency's employees and volunteers and those of utility customers, there is no general exemption for addresses and, in any case, an e-mail address is not a residential address. To conclude otherwise would require an expansive reading of the exemption for "residential addresses," contrary to statute which requires exemptions to be "narrowly construed."
May cities and counties impose their regular photocopy charges when responding to a public disclosure request for copies of their civil service rules?
No. State law requires that cities and counties provide copies of police or fire civil service rules to the public for free. See RCW 41.08.040(1) and RCW 41.12.040(1), pertaining to fire and police civil service in cities, and RCW 41.14.060(1), pertaining to civil service for the sheriff's office in counties, which provide that the civil service rules and regulations "shall be printed, mimeographed or multigraphed for free public distribution."

For more information on this topic, see our "MRSC Inquiries - Public Records" and "Public Records Disclosure" Web pages.
Must copies of public records be provided at no cost if requestor says he/she cannot afford the cost?

There is no provision in state public disclosure law that exempts indigent persons from having to pay for copies of public records pursuant to a public disclosure request. A public agency could adopt a policy to that effect; however, unless it puts an upper limit on that number, it would be opening itself up to providing to indigent persons any number of copies at no charge. Also, any such policy should require proof of indigent status, as that may be defined in the policy.
For more information on this topic, see MRSC's "Public Records Disclosure" Web page.
Are building plans submitted by a developer for approval by the local government considered disclosable information?

Building plans submitted to a local government for approval are considered public records and copies should be given to individuals requesting them. There is no public disclosure exemption that applies to such plans. If a municipality has reason to believe that the developer may object to the disclosure of the plans, the municipality has the option of notifying the developer before disclosure so that the developer can attempt to obtain a court order prohibiting disclosure.
Are police-prepared accident reports subject to public disclosure?

Yes, accident reports prepared by law enforcement officers are subject to disclosure. According to Guillen v. Pierce County, 144 Wn.2d 696 (9/13/01), accident reports prepared by the police are disclosable.

Also, a 2001 Attorney General Opinion (2001 Att'y Gen. Op. No. 8) concluded that reports prepared by investigating law enforcement officers under Ch. 46.52 RCW, unlike reports prepared by the drivers or passengers of vehicles involved in accidents, are subject to public disclosure and copying, except to the extent some other exemption wholly or partially applies to the record in question, and are not rendered automatically confidential by RCW 46.52.080.
Public Disclosure - Is the address of a former employee exempt from public disclosure after the employee has ceased to be employed by the city or county?

Yes. RCW 42.17.310(1)(u) exempts from public disclosure an employee's residential address and telephone number. The state court of appeals in Seattle Fire Fighters Union v. Hollister, 48 Wn. App. 129 (1987), held that a different public employee disclosure exemption continues even after the employee has retired. The court reasoned that the legislative intent of an exemption to protect the privacy rights of public employees logically leads to the conclusion that the exemption does not terminate upon retirement.
For more information on this topic, see our Public Records Disclosure Web page.
Public Disclosure - Is a letter of reprimand in an employees personnel file a public record that must be disclosed?

Yes, if it relates to misconduct on the job. The test is whether the record would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and is not of legitimate concern to the public. Since it relates to misconduct, it is of legitimate concern to the public and must be released. See Dawson v. Daly, 120 Wn.2d 782 (1993) and Cox v. Spokane County, a recent federal district court case.

For more information on this topic, see our Public Records Disclosure page.
Public Disclosure - Are the names of finalists for a city manager position open to public inspection?

No. RCW 42.17.310 exempts from public inspection and copying all applications for public employment, including the names of applicants, resumes, and other related materials.

For more information on this topic, see our Public Records Disclosure Web page.
How long must a city or county retain the minutes of advisory boards, committees or commissions?

The General Records Retention Schedules for Local Governments (1327kb) indicates, on p. S-24, that such records shall be retained for 6 years, and have potential archival value, so your Regional Archivist should be contacted before disposing of the records.

For more information on this topic, see the following:
- MRSC's Records Management Web page
- Records and Information Management Publications for State and Local Government Agencies - Includes links to 2002 General Records Retention Schedules for Agencies of Washington State Government
Does the public disclosure exemption for names of persons who file complaints apply to a complaint filed with the planning department about a land use violation?

Yes, we believe it would apply to protect the name of the complainant from disclosure. RCW 42.17.310(1)(e) exempts from disclosure information revealing the identity of persons who are witnesses to or victims of crimes or who file complaints with investigative, law enforcement, or penology agencies if disclosure would endanger any person's life, physical safety or property. If at the time the complaint is filed, the complainant indicates a desire for nondisclosure, such desire shall govern.

The issue is whether a complaint filed with a city planning department could qualify under this exemption, and specifically whether a planning department can constitute an "investigative agency." In this case, the planning department does have specific authority to investigate complaints and issue fines, seek abatement or seek criminal penalties, and, as such, we believe it would qualify as an investigative agency. The intent of the statute is to encourage citizens to file complaints as necessary and be assured that their safety will be protected. This intent is furthered by considering a planning department as being an investigative agency for purposes of the public disclosure law.

One case that supports this conclusion is Tacoma News v. County Health Department, 55 Wn. App. 515 (1989). In that case, the court specifically held that a health department is an investigative and law enforcement agency. This is not precisely analogous but it does indicate that investigative agencies are not limited to police departments or other strictly criminal justice agencies.
Request for sample electronic records management policies.
Most Washington local government electronic records management policies are based on the Washington State Archives requirements and records retention schedules for local governments. The State Archives has issued several useful publications, including the guidelines for electronic mail policies and records management (see links below). While an electronic records management policy generally addresses the retention of all electronic records, in practice many of these policies deal primarily with E-mail. Sometimes local government network use and Internet use are covered as well.
The following are issues that are appropriately addressed in an electronic records management policy:
- Creation of records
- Proper and improper uses (especially related to E-mail and Internet use)
- Public disclosure, privacy/confidentiality, and other legal issues
- Records retention requirements
- Maintenance and management of records
- Retrieval of electronic records
- Monitoring of records and enforcement of policy (including city's right to access)
- Security.
Such policies typically include a purpose and definitions sections. Other specific topics may include use of electronic signatures, geographic information systems, and copyright.
For information on issues and contents of E-mail policies, see the Washington State Archives publication on electronic mail guidelines and the MRSC Research Brief, "Internet and E-Mail Policies" (1998).
Washington State and Local Government Information
- Washington State Archives, Records and Information Management Publications for State and Local Government Agencies
- "Local Government Agencies of Washington State, Records Management Guidelines," 2001 (see Electronic Records Systems, p. 25+ and Electronic Mail, p. 27+)
- "Local Government Agencies of Washington State, Records Management Guidelines and General Records Retention Schedules," 2002 (see p. 69 - Electronic Information)
- MRSC page on Electronic Public Records
- MRSC page on E-mail and Internet policies (Many of these articles and policies are from the 1990s. Some of the more recent policies include those from Bothell, Lynnwood, Omak and Woodland.)
- MRSC page on Records Management
- MRSC page on Public Records Disclosure
- Seattle Department of Information Technology Policy and Standards
General Articles
- "Some Assembly Required: Building a Digital Government for the 21st Century," Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany / SUNY, 1999 (See p. 26)
- "Models for Action: Developing Practical Approaches to Electronic Records Management and Preservation"
- "Electronic Archiving: Requirements, Principles, Strategy, and Best Practices," by Cohasset Associates, 2000
- "Crossroads - Developments in electronic records management and information technology" (Periodical)
Policies from Other States
- Philadelphia Electronic Records Project
- "Philadelphia Project - Models for the Management of Electronic Records: Experiences Applying the Functional Requirements," 1997
- Dallas, TX Records Management Program (see Sec. 39C-19. Electronic Storage of City Records)
- California Electronic Records Management Handbook, 2002
- Minnesota State Archives - Electronic Records Management Guidelines
- Utah Division of State Archives, Draft Electronic Records Policy and general electronic records information (includes links to many documents from other states)
Other Information on Archival Standards
- "Guide for Managing Electronic Records from an Archival Perspective," International Council on Archives, 1997
- University Archives Group, Standards for an Electronic Records Policy
How are the five business days calculated in RCW 42.17.320, which relates to responding to public record requests?
RCW 42.17.320 provides that a response to public records request must be made by the agency within five business days. The question is whether the day the request is received counts as one of the five days.

This office has taken the position that the day the request is received does not count as one of the five days. As additional support for that conclusion, RCW 1.12.040 provides:

The time within which an act is to be done, as herein provided, shall be computed by excluding the first day, and including the last, unless the last day is a holiday, Saturday, or Sunday, and then it is also excluded.

This statute appears to be of general application throughout the state statutes.

Additional indirect support exists in the case of Limstrom v. Ladenburg, 98 Wn. App. 612 (1999). That case involved a public records request. The request was received on Tuesday, February 3, 1998 and the county responded on Friday, February 6, 1998. The court indicated that the response was made on the third day within the five day time period, which means the court was not counting the day the request was received.
In connection with a public records disclosure request, may a city or county charge for the cost of retrieving and re-filing public records that are archived in commercial facilities that charge for such costs?
No. Public agencies may not charge requestors for any costs incurred with locating records and making them available for inspection and/or copying. Copying charges may, of course, be imposed. See RCW 42.17.300.
If a city or county intends to rebid a public works project after all bids have been opened and rejected, must the previously rejected bid documents be disclosed in response to a request for public disclosure?
Yes. There is no exception to public disclosure that would exempt the bid documents from disclosure (except for proprietary information that might qualify under the RCW 42.17.310(1)(h)).
Is a list of individual county or city employee e-mail addresses subject to public disclosure?
Yes, there is no statutory exemption from public disclosure that would apply here. Since these are workplace and not home e-mail addresses, there are no personal privacy implications. The e-mail list is really no different than a list of work telephone extension numbers.
Is a city or county required to respond to a public records disclosure request electronically? Specifically, if a requestor asks that copies of specific public records be faxed, e-mailed, or provided via diskette, must the city respond as requested?
A city or county is under no legal obligation to respond electronically to a public disclosure request. A local government agency can adopt a policy of only providing paper copies of public records. However, if the person requesting the records asks that copies be provided in an electronic format, city staff can choose to respond electronically, if that will be easier. We expect that gradually more individuals will ask for copies in an electronic format, and as staff become more comfortable and proficient with the various options, more responses will be made in those ways. Remember that the costs involved with transmittal can be charged to the requesting individual. For instance, the jurisdiction can require payment for the cost of a diskette and postage.
How should a city respond to a general request for information or records on a particular subject?
Under state public disclosure law, public records are to be made available for inspection and copying upon a request for "identifiable public records." RCW 42.17.270. Thus, if an individual simply requests information on a particular subject or all records on a particular subject, such a request would not seem to comply with the specificity required by the statute. For example, a city would not be required to comply with a request for all records relating to utility rates, but it would be required to comply with a request for all utility rate ordinances enacted between 1985 and 1990. To facilitate public access to public records, a city must maintain an index of its records, unless to do so would be unduly burdensome. RCW 42.17.260(3), (4).
How soon must a city respond to a request for public records?
State law requires that responses to requests for public records be made "promptly." Specifically, cities and other governmental agencies must within five business days of receiving a request respond by either (1) providing the record, (2) acknowledging receipt of the record and providing a reasonable estimate of the time in which a response will be made, or (3) denying the request. Additional response time beyond five days may be based upon a need to clarify the request, to locate and assemble the records requested, to notify people and agencies affected by the request, or to determine whether any of the requested records are exempt from disclosure. RCW 42.17.320.
What can a city charge for providing copies of public records?
Cities are not allowed to charge for the staff time spent in locating a public record, or for making a record available for inspection. A city can however, charge for the actual costs connected with copying public records, including the staff time spent making the copies. A city cannot charge more than fifteen cents a page for photocopying unless the city has calculated its actual costs per page and determined that they are greater than fifteen cents. Actual costs for postage and delivery can be included, as well as the cost of any envelopes. If a city has to pay an outside source for making duplicates of records such as photographs, blueprints or tape recordings, the city can also pass those costs on to the requestor. RCW 42.17.260(7) & (8) and RCW 42.17.300.
What constitutes a public record?
The state statutes broadly define public records. "`Public record' includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics." RCW 42.17.020(36).
The term "writing" encompasses a wide range of communication forms or representation. Writing includes, but is not limited to, any form of letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols and all papers, maps, tapes, films, prints, motion picture, film, and video recordings. RCW 42.17.020(42).
Does a councilmember have greater access to public records than the public?
As a general rule, a councilmember has greater access to public records than does the public. However, a councilmember's access should relate to the duties of that office.
What public records are exempt from disclosure?
In general, public records that are exempt from public disclosure are those in the categories listed in RCW 42.17.310(1). Reference must be made to this statute to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a particular record is exempt. (Examples of a few commonly encountered exemptions are discussed below.) When a city denies a request for disclosure of a public record, it must identify the specific statutory exemption upon which the denial is based and it must provide a brief explanation of how that exemption applies. RCW 42.17.310(4).
It should be kept in mind, however, that certain statutes outside of the public records law also prohibit disclosure of particular records. For a complete listing of those statutes, see MRSC&s Public Records Disclosure publication.
Are employment applications exempt from disclosure?
Yes, applications for public employment, including the names of applicants, resumes, and other material related to the applications are exempt from disclosure. RCW 42.17.310(1)(t). Although the statutory exemption does not specifically refer to applications for public appointive office, its legislative history indicates that it was intended to also apply to applicants for offices, such as the office of city manager or city clerk.
Is personal information contained in employee personnel files exempt from disclosure?
It depends on the nature of the information in these records. RCW 42.17.310(1)(b) exempts such records "to the extent disclosure would violate [the employee's] right to privacy." What constitutes a violation of a person's right to privacy is defined by statute to mean the disclosure of information that would be (1) "highly offensive to a reasonable person" and (2) "not of legitimate concern to the public." RCW 42.17.255. This is a stringent test, and it is unlikely that the disclosure of most records found in personnel files would violate an employee's right to privacy, as defined by this statute.
Must a city disclose records which reveal the salary and benefits that a particular employee or official receives?
Yes. There is no disclosure exemption that applies to such records.
Must a city disclose utility billing records?
Yes. No exemption applies. However, the city should not disclose the residential addresses and telephone numbers of utility customers that may be contained in such records. RCW 42.17.310(1)(v).
Must a city provide public records if they are being requested for commercial purposes?
In addition to the statutory exemptions from disclosure that a city must consider in responding to a particular request, a city is prohibited from providing or giving access to "lists of individuals" if requested for commercial purposes. RCW 42.17.260(9). The Attorney General's Office has interpreted this provision to refer only to lists of natural persons, rather than, for example, to lists of businesses. Public records other than "lists of individuals" requested for commercial purposes should be provided upon request if they are not statutorily exempt from disclosure.
Must city provide names of city manager interviewees to requesting newspaper?
No. RCW 42.17.310(1)(t) exempts "all applications for public employment, including the names of applicants, resumes, and other related materials submitted with respect to an applicant," from public disclosure and copying. Although this section only makes reference to public employees, a review of its statutory history suggests that it also covers officials. Language included in a governor's veto of a related, referenced section, makes it clear that applications for appointment to an office, such as city manager, should likewise be exempt from inspection and copying.
When should draft council minutes be made available to public?
Draft minutes should probably be made available to members of the public when completed, even though not yet approved by the council. It might be argued that RCW 42.17.210(1)(i) exempts draft minutes; however, the draft minutes presumably do not include the clerk's "opinions" or proposed policies. Since the policy behind the public records act is that its terms are to be "liberally construed" to allow for complete access to public records, the safest approach is to allow the public access to the draft minutes. The minutes should be clearly marked as being "draft" and "without council review and approval."
May town disclose record containing a list of town businesses if requested for a commercial purpose?
Yes. Based on an attorney general's opinion, the statutory prohibition on disclosing "lists of individuals" if requested for commercial purposes applies only to lists of "natural persons," and thus, does not apply to lists of businesses.
May some city records be stored in city offices other than city hall?
Yes. WAC 414-12-020 and WAC 414-12-010, regulations that govern custody of public records, provide that public records are the property of the city and that they should be stored in the office in which they were originally filed. This may not always be the office of the clerk but may be a branch office of the city in some cases. The security of the records must be maintained wherever they are stored.
Must a city provide all public records requested within five days?
No. A city only needs to make a preliminary response within five business days. The response may be to provide the records but may also be to indicate a time frame within which the city may reasonably fulfill the request. See RCW 42.17.320.
Must records of a city be copied for free for nonprofit organizations?
No. The public records law allows a city to recover a reasonable charge for providing copies of public records to any person. This applies to nonprofit corporations as well as private citizens or businesses. The charge may not exceed the amount necessary to reimburse the agency for its actual costs and may not include staff time needed to retrieve the documents.
Are informal notes prepared and kept by mayor and councilmembers public records that are subject to disclosure?
Informal notes prepared for the use of the official for his or her own convenience, are maintained in a way that indicates a private purpose, and are not intended for circulation or distribution within the city, would most likely be considered personal and not public records. As such, they would not be subject to disclosure upon request by a member of the public.
May cities disclose an employee's social security number that may be contained in the employee's personnel file?
No. This information is protected under RCW 42.17.310(1)(b). This statute provides that personal information in an employee's file, which would include a social security number, is protected if disclosure would violate the employee's right to privacy. Disclosure of a social security number, because of its uses today, would violate that right of privacy.
Should salaries of public employees be disclosed upon request?
Yes. Salaries of all public officials and public employees must be disclosed. Personal information regarding public employees, such as home address, phone number, social security number, etc., should not be disclosed.
Is a city or county required to respond to public records disclosure requests by electronic means (e.g., fax or e-mail)?
No. A city/county is under no obligation to respond to disclosure requests electronically - either by facsimile or by e-mailing a file. The public has a right to review public records at city or county offices, and the public has a right to obtain copies of public records if they pay the reasonable costs charged by the city/county. Whether or not a local government should respond by facsimile or e-mail is a policy/administrative decision. Of course, e-mailing a document that happens to be in electronic format will usually be easier and more cost efficient than mailing a paper copy. Depending on document length, faxing will also in many cases be a more timely and cost-efficient means of transmitting documents.
If a city/county responds to a public records disclosure request by transmitting an electronic file by e-mail or facsimile, the staff time spent in performing that task can be charged. A city/county should have an ordinance in place that provides the per-hour cost for various staff. Cities/counties could also adopt a policy limiting the number of pages they will transmit by fax.
Must city agree to provide copies of "future records"?
In our opinion, no. The responsibility to provide inspection or copies of records is set out by RCW 42.17.260(1):

Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, RCW 42.17.310, 42.17.315, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records.

The term "public record" means:

Public record includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.

RCW 42.17.020(36). And "writing" is defined as:

Writing" means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, and every other means of recording any form of communication or representation, including, but not limited to, letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination thereof . . ..

RCW 42.17.020(42).
A future record, that is, one that does not exist today but may be created in the future, does not, it would seem, qualify as a "writing," as there is not, as yet, any communication or representation that can be recorded. If there is no "writing," there can be no "public record" and, accordingly, there can be no requirement to allow inspection or copying as result of a current request. (Obviously, if a future request is made and the record then exists, the request will need to be considered.)
It also does not make sense to commit to providing possible future documents. When would the clock start running for providing access? Five days after creation of the document? Would the city have a continuing obligation to provide the document or tell why it is exempt forever?
In our opinion, the city's obligation is confined to existing records.
Are cities and counties required to create a document when responding to a specific request for public disclosure?
No. The best authority on this issue used to be Concerned Ratepayers v. PUD No. 1, 93 Wn.App. 219, at 234 (1998). The application of this rule occurs in the case, but the ruling is not as clear as the case headnote implies. The Concerned Ratepayers litigation subsequently resulted in a state supreme court ruling [138 Wn.2d 950, 983 P.2d 635 (1999)], but the issue of creating a document is not discussed in that decision.
However, a recent Court of Appeals decision has finally addressed the issue directly: Smith v. Okanogan County, decided 2/8/00:

No Washington case has decided whether a duty to create an otherwise non-existent document exists under RCW 42.17. But there is federal law on this issue. . . . Under the Freedom of Information Act, an agency is not required to create a record which is otherwise non-existent. See National Labor Relations Bd. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 161-62, 95 S. Ct. 1504, 44 L. Ed.2d 29 (1975). We agree and determine there is also no such duty under the State Act.
Must the city disclose the name of the complainant on a nuisance complaint?
Maybe. If the requesting party is requesting the information under the Public Disclosure Act, the name likely can be withheld. RCW 42.17.310(1)(e) provides in part:

(e) Information revealing the identity of persons who are witnesses to or victims of crime or who file complaints with investigative, law enforcement, or penology agencies, other than the public disclosure commission, if disclosure would endanger any person's life, physical safety, or property. If at the time a complaint is filed the complainant, victim or witness indicates a desire for disclosure or nondisclosure, such desire shall govern.

If the disclosure "would endanger" the person's life, safety, or property, or if the complainant requested nondisclosure, the record (or, at least, the identifying information) need not be disclosed.
However, if the requesting party has been charged with a crime, he or she is entitled to the information through the discovery process. The city should warn complainants that if the criminal process is invoked, their name will almost certainly have to be released. CrRLJ 4.7 provides:
How are the five business days calculated in RCW 42.17.320, which relates to responding to public record requests?
RCW 42.17.320 provides that a response to public records request must be made by the agency within five business days. The question is whether the day the request is received counts as one of the five days.
This office has taken the position that the day the request is received does not count as one of the five days.
As additional support for that conclusion, RCW 1.12.040 provides:

The time within which an act is to be done, as herein provided, shall be computed by excluding the first day, and including the last, unless the last day is a holiday, Saturday, or Sunday, and then it is also excluded.

The general statute appears to be of general application throughout the state statutes.
Additional indirect support exists in the case of Linstrom v. Ladenbury, 98 Wn. App. 612 (1999). That case involved a public records request. The request was received on Tuesday, February 3, 1998 and the county responded on Friday, February 6, 1998. The court indicated that the response was made on the third day within the five-day time period, which means the court was not counting the day the request was received.
Does a city or county have a continuing duty to provide documents relevant to a public disclosure request?

No. If documents that a city or county would have disclosed in response to a public disclosure request are received or created after the city or county has responded to a request, it does not have a duty to provide those documents. It would be incumbent upon the requester to make a subsequent request. The city or county has a duty to provide public records for inspection and copying, unless those records are exempt from disclosure. RCW 42.17.260(1). If a city does not have or has not yet created a record when the request is made, it is not covered by the request.

For more information on this topic, see our Public Records Disclosure page.
What is the records retention schedule?
The general records retention schedule is issued by the Local Records Committee to serve as the retention schedule and disposition authority for records commonly held by local government agencies. The Local Records Committee is a committee which includes the State Archivist, a representative from the Office of the Attorney General, and a representative from the Office of the State Auditor.

The general records retention schedules may be applied directly by agencies as authority to destroy the records listed after the expiration of their approved retention periods. It requires no further authorization or approval.

The latest Records Management Guidelines and General Records Retention Schedules was approved and issued in July, 2001.
Must a local board of commissioners or council make an audio tape recording of its official proceedings and, if an audio tape is made, are written minutes still required?
There does not appear to be any legal requirement for local legislative bodies to make audio tape recordings of general public meetings of the legislative body. Written minutes are still required as a permanent record of legislative proceedings. Many local legislative bodies make a tape recording of the proceedings to assist the clerk in preparing the required summary or minutes of the official proceedings for approval by the council or board. If such a tape is made, it must now be retained for the new six year period even if the purpose for tape recording is simply to assist the clerk in preparing minutes. Even though the tape must now be retained for six years, written meeting minutes are still required for every regular and special meetings, except executive sessions, under the Open Public Meetings Act, chapter 42.30 RCW (RCW 42.32.030 ).
Different rules apply to quasi-judicial adjudicative proceedings and to public hearings where specific findings are required and a record may need to be made for judicial review. Washington courts have held that a verbatim record is required and even a close paraphrase of the proceedings is not sufficient where it becomes necessary to prepare an adequate record for review. Although other methods of reporting are possible to obtain a verbatim transcript, the potential need for a verbatim transcript essentially means an audio recording is required for any hearing involving testimony upon which the legislative body will base its decision and which will become part of the record in the event of judicial review. If a verbatim transcript of the tapes is prepared and certified, the required retention period for the audio tapes may be reduced. If there is any question over whether a tape needs to be made, consideration might be given to making a tape recording simply to avoid a court subsequently vacating the action due to lack of an adequate record for review. In addition, the courts have upheld actions even where the formal written findings were found inadequate to support the decision, where the decision was supported by oral findings contained in the tapes of the proceeding. If you have any questions on whether audio tapes need to be made of particular hearings or proceedings, you should discuss the issue with your county prosecutor or city attorney.
If our legislative body wants to discontinue the practice of taping official proceedings as an aid to the preparation of official minutes, is any action necessary?
Probably. If the board or council have established a regular practice of taping official proceedings, even if the purpose of the tape is merely to assist the clerk in preparing the official minutes, they would need to take formal action to discontinue the practice of taping meetings.
If the council or commission makes tapes of its meetings solely as an aid to preparation of the official minutes and the official minutes of a particular meeting have been prepared, approved, and made available for public review, is the county still required to make the tapes available to the public?
Yes. The audio tapes are still "public records" which must be made available for review under the state public records disclosure laws. For more information about Washington's public records disclosure laws, see MRSC publication Public Records Disclosure for Washington Cities and Counties, Report No. 61, June 2004.
Which record controls, the audio tape or the official summary of proceedings or minutes?
The official record would be the formal minutes which are reviewed and approved by the legislative body in accordance with their adopted rules of procedure. In the event of a conflict between the officially adopted minutes and the audio tape, several legal issues are raised and the situation would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The official minutes will likely control. The rules of procedure for the legislative body should address correction of official minutes in the event the tape reveals an obvious mistake.
Must the city disclose a police report containing the details of an alleged criminal offense by a juvenile to the father of the crime victim?
Yes. RCW 13.50.050(9) contains an exception to the general rule (see RCW 13.50.050(3)) that records regarding juvenile criminal offenses are confidential, except for the official court file:

(9) Upon request of the victim of a crime or the victim's immediate family, the identity of an alleged or proven juvenile offender alleged or found to have committed a crime against the victim and the identity of the alleged or proven juvenile offender's parent, guardian, or custodian and the circumstance of the alleged or proven crime shall be released to the victim of the crime or the victim's immediate family.

Under this exception, any member of the crime victim's immediate family could request and must be provided with this information.
Could a city or county allow an insurance company to obtain copies of an arson investigation report while the investigation is on-going but deny its release to others?

Investigative reports are exempt from disclosure requirements during the course of an investigation. It is, though, an exemption, rather than a prohibition. So, a city or county could, in its discretion, release such a report to an insurance company, which obviously has an interest in the subject. The record remains exempt, though, and so, release to the insurance company would not require that the report be released to everyone. Obviously, once the investigation is concluded, the exemption would be lost, and the report would be available for review and copying by others.