Guest writer: Whatcom County needs a new path to a modern index of public records

Washington’s Public Records Act defines a public record as “… 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.” Local governments are required to retain public records; many follow the Local Government Common Records Retention Schedule (“CORE”).

RCW 42.56.070 (3) states: “Each local agency shall maintain and make available for public inspection and copying a current index providing identifying information as to the following records issued, adopted, or promulgated after Jan. 1, 1973 …”

RCW 42.56.070 (4) states: “A local agency need not maintain such an index, if to do so would be unduly burdensome, but it shall in that event …”

In Whatcom County, the current approach to public records management is described in Resolution 2005-078, passed by county council on Dec. 6, 2005, establishing an official policy for meeting the public records requirement of RCW 42.17.260 (3):

“NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by Whatcom County Council that no Whatcom County official, branch, agency, board, department, division, office, commission or other county government-related entity is required to maintain a combined index of public records conforming to the requirements of RCW 42.17.260 (3)”. [Note: RCW 42.17.260 was recodified as RCW 42.56.070, effective July 1, 2006].

Whatcom County’s public records management policy is further defined in Chapter 1.32.100 (A) of the Whatcom County Code:

“Whatcom County government is comprised of many departments, agencies, divisions, boards, offices, and commissions which maintain separate records and incompatible record-keeping systems. The county’s records are voluminous, diverse, complex and stored in multiple locations and in multiple incompatible databases. Therefore, it would be unduly burdensome and costly to the taxpayers, and would substantially interfere with effective and timely county operations, to develop an index of those records identified in RCW 42.56.070(3).”

RCW 42.56.07 (4) and WCC-Chapter 1.32.100 (A) present a rationale for not creating a unified index of public records that tests the limits of credibility. The assumption that developing a unified index would be “unduly burdensome” compared to maintaining “multiple incompatible databases” in “multiple locations” contradicts modern information management practices.

Chapter 1.32.100 is problematic in several ways:

• It focuses on excuses, not solutions.
• “unduly burdensome and costly” as well as “substantially interfere with effective and timely county operations” is subjective and unsupported.
• Keeping “separate records and incompatible record-keeping systems” is not considered best practices in IT administration, nor is it a justification for maintaining the status quo.
• Prioritizes government convenience over public access: This policy reveals a mindset that views maintaining public records as a burden rather than a vital responsibility of an open government.

The assertion that maintaining multiple indexes is less expensive than optimizing resources defies basic economic principles. Imagine a library with separate card catalogs for each genre: fiction, nonfiction, biography, etc. Each catalog would require its own development, maintenance and updating, leading to duplicated effort and increased costs.

The rationalization given for not creating a combined index, in Chapter 1.32.100 (A), hinges on the perceived complexity of integrating “voluminous, diverse, complex” records stored in “multiple locations and in multiple incompatible databases.” While this complexity is undeniable, it is precisely this challenge that modern indexing is designed to address.

A well-designed index acts as a roadmap, creating order and accessibility within a complex information environment. Modern indexing technologies, particularly those leveraging cloud services, AI and machine learning, can effectively handle voluminous, diverse, complex records at scale.

While Chapter 1.32.100 (A) and Resolution 2005-078 clarify that a combined index of public records isn’t required, the lack of one creates challenges. The county’s current policy neglects to address the hidden costs of not having a comprehensive index of public records. Without such a system, locating specific records becomes a laborious task, requiring duplicative searches across many sources, potentially leading to overlooked information.

This inefficiency translates to wasted staff time, additional expense, delayed responses to public records requests, increased frustration for residents, and increased vulnerability to cyber threats and data loss. In the long run, these hidden costs can far exceed the perceived cost of creating a comprehensive index of public records.

Whatcom County’s approach to public records management is not unique. Many municipalities skirt the intent of Washington’s Public Records Act by not maintaining a unified index. Whatcom County Council can adjust course by amending Resolution 2005-078, and modernizing Chapter 1.32.100 (A).

By taking these actions, they will foster transparency and accountability in local government safeguarding our public records.

RB Tewksbury is a Bellingham resident, entrepreneur and philanthropist who served on Whatcom County’s Stakeholder Advisory Committee for the Justice Project. He is one of three current Whatcom County Civil Service commissioners and is a member of the county’s Business and Commerce Advisory Committee.