Well said, Dejure, Well said. Take note Paula, Betty and Marti...
The background ramblings by the Supreme Court, regarding the proposed new rule for disclosure of administrative court records, is half hogwash. The legislature did not create the Public Disclosure Act. We (The People) did, by initiative. These are our courts and they exist at our pleasure and are purposed to be representative of our will.
Former ramblings that asserted the erroneous contention courts are exempt from the Act, because they are not mentioned in the Act, are nothing more than a "grasping for straws" effort to avoid having records damaging to the courts disclosed. (While I cannot guarantee disclosure of records would send many a judge and other officers of the court to jail, or at least out of office, it's more likely than not). A host of legislative and executive agencies also are not mentioned. Still, they are subject to the Act.
The People's Act clearly states "government at all levels" is to be subject to the Act. We intended transparency of OUR government. We excluded no part of it in solidifying our intent and did not intend to leave disclosure of records of the most dangerous branch to the whims and convenience of a few self serving animators of our courts (judges).
The case of Nast versus Michaels was and is used to grow and support the current misrepresentation the People's will was to allow the courts to prance about doing as they pleased. However, it was about case files only. It did not reach the matter of administrative records. That was never an issue before the court. Instead, the Supreme Court took an opportunity to incorporate dicta and then use it to trod on the Peoples will and authority. Worse yet, the case evolved over the years and is now [miss]cited or misrepresented to support a contention We (the people) did not desire or intend to hold all of OUR government accountable through scrutiny of the backroom acts [and omissions] of our servants at the judicial level. (my own emphasis added)
Former ramblings that asserted the erroneous contention courts are exempt from the Act, because they are not mentioned in the Act, are nothing more than a "grasping for straws" effort to avoid having records damaging to the courts disclosed. (While I cannot guarantee disclosure of records would send many a judge and other officers of the court to jail, or at least out of office, it's more likely than not). A host of legislative and executive agencies also are not mentioned. Still, they are subject to the Act.
The People's Act clearly states "government at all levels" is to be subject to the Act. We intended transparency of OUR government. We excluded no part of it in solidifying our intent and did not intend to leave disclosure of records of the most dangerous branch to the whims and convenience of a few self serving animators of our courts (judges).
The case of Nast versus Michaels was and is used to grow and support the current misrepresentation the People's will was to allow the courts to prance about doing as they pleased. However, it was about case files only. It did not reach the matter of administrative records. That was never an issue before the court. Instead, the Supreme Court took an opportunity to incorporate dicta and then use it to trod on the Peoples will and authority. Worse yet, the case evolved over the years and is now [miss]cited or misrepresented to support a contention We (the people) did not desire or intend to hold all of OUR government accountable through scrutiny of the backroom acts [and omissions] of our servants at the judicial level. (my own emphasis added)
Access to judicial branch administrative records: Proposed court rule ready for public comments
June 17, 2011
OLYMPIA — A proposed new court rule governing public access to judicial branch administrative records has been released for public input by the Washington State Supreme Court. The rule presumes open access to judicial administrative records, within the standards and guidelines of the rule.
Comments on the proposed rule must be received no later than November 30, 2011.
The rule was developed to fill a gap in existing state laws and court rules, which do not address public access to judicial branch administrative records. The Washington State Public Records Act does not apply to judicial branch records, and General Court Rule 31 addresses only records pertaining to court proceedings. Because they belong to a separate branch of government, Washington courts and judicial branch agencies are not governed by the Legislature but by the state Supreme Court, which adopts “court rules” to regulate the operations of the courts.
In 2010, the Board for Judicial Administration (BJA) created the Public Records Work Group, which includes members both from within the judicial branch and from outside groups interested in public access to judicial records. The Work Group recommended new standards and procedures for providing this access and creating the proposed “General Court Rule (GR) 31A – Access to Administrative Records.”
The proposed rule defines the types of records it pertains to, procedures for obtaining access to the records, sanctions on courts or agencies for non-compliance, exemptions, creation of best practices, tools for handling particularly burdensome requests and an effective date that would give courts and judicial agencies time to train staff and develop best practices.
To read the proposed rule, go to http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/ and click “Proposed Rules Published for Comments,” then click the June 2011 rules, or go directly tohttp://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.proposedRuleDisplay&ruleId=258 .
Unless otherwise noted, all comments should be submitted to the Clerk of the Supreme Court by either U.S. mail or Internet e-mail. Comments may be sent to the following addresses: P.O. Box 40929, Olympia, WA 98504-0929, or Camilla.Faulk@courts.wa.gov. Comments submitted by e-mail may not exceed 1500 words. CONTACT: Communications Officer Lorrie Thompson, (360) 705-5347.
