Sometimes it just takes a little time for governments to do the right thing (and a little media exposure) when it comes to full compliance with the state's public records act. I just experienced this firsthand concerning one of my records request to the City of Seattle concerning its illegal income tax. 

Though Seattle has been helpful with several of my records request concerning its income tax proposal (contract with EOI, contract with outside counsel & legal cost to date for drafting) it denied my request for city memos concerning the legality of the proposal. Seattle said: "the records you are seeking are privileged in their entirety. An exemption log explaining the withheld records has been provided for your convenience at no charge."

One of those denied records, however, was listed as being authored by John Burbank (his organization EOI received a $49,500 contract to develop the income tax proposal). I had this exchange with Seattle on why that specific record was withheld: 

Me: "One of the records withheld appears to be authored by a non-Seattle employee, John Burbank (line 23). How can a document from a private citizen to the council be exempt from disclosure?"

Seattle: "As column v displays, this document was last authored by Assistant City Attorney Kent Meyer."

Me: "Is the original version authored by Mr. Burbank available for disclosure?"

Seattle: "Our assertion is the record is exempt from disclosure."

Me: "To confirm, the City is denying a copy of the original Memorandum authored by John Burbank under attorney-client privilege/work product?"

Seattle: "I neither confirm nor deny any part of your statement. Our assertion remains that the record is exempt from disclosure. It had multiple authors, one of whom was Assistant City Attorney Kent Meyer."

That seemed to be the end of it leaving me to ponder what steps to take next. I decided to submit a revised records request instead of pursue other action at this time.

This morning, however, an article was posted quoting open government advocates questioning why Seattle was denying that record: 

“My position on it would be he’s (Burbank) not an attorney, this wasn’t done as part of the work of an attorney,” Coalition For Open Government President Toby Nixon said. “It is not privileged under attorney-client privilege. I don’t see how they have any valid claim.”

A few hours after that story ran I received this email from Seattle: 

"On further review, the document listed as BRZ0000022 in the exemption log was not responsive to your July 26, 2017 Public Records Act request. However, in the interest of efficiency we are disclosing the record at this time and are waiving any charges."

I don't see why Seattle originally claimed this document was exempt from disclosure to begin with (it's just a draft ordinance). Seattle is still withholding several records in their entirety but at least not the one cited in the exemption log by Burbank.

While I'm grateful for my friends in the press for highlighting the original denial, what if I had just been Joe Citizen making this request? Would Seattle have changed its mind and provided the record originally denied? 

This is why it is important for everyone to remain vigilant defending the people's right to know and ensuring strict adherence with the state's public records act.