History, politics, people of Oly WA

Category: public records paywall

Paywall to Public Records update: Still nothing going on

Thurston County sent out a press release recently that seems to be pointing in the right direction. Actually nothing at all though:

“Implementation of this integrated document management system will provide easy access to court documents, the ability to store documents locally and is cost effective to maintain. This system will benefit all parties involved.” said Enlow.

You know, except the public.

What Enlow is talking about here is an internal document and work management system between the various threads of the local legal system. Judges, bureaucrats and the clerk being all on the same, updated system.  But, this — as far as I can tell — is an inward facing system. It doesn’t do anything to provide public access to records within the court system.

And (I note in a very self referential manner) is a problem in Washington State.

We have strong laws protecting public access to public records in this state. Except when it comes to records in our courts. There is a clear common law (legal tradition) in that court records are public, but we’re charge exorbitant prices for court filings. In one case, I could’ve paid $30 for a 16 page document for a case concerning a ballot initiative.

The reason behind this paywall is a state law amended ten years ago that allow county clerks to charge a steep price for digital public records, well beyond the costs allowed by our other state public records laws.

Not every county collects these fees. Whatcom County stands out as a local government that allows free access to its citizens. According to the Whatcom County clerk, Dave Reynolds, this both lowers costs to his staff, but also provides free access (yeah!) regardless of income.

The Case Management System of Superior Courts referred in the press release above was literally the most prominent issue in the clerk race last year. The eventual winner wanted to join the statewide system now being developed. The loser wanted a home-brewed system.  Literally an entire race bent on which backroom computer system the clerks and courts should use.

I’d rather we spend our time opening up public records to the public. We should either pull back the 2005 law change or ask our clerks to be more like Whatcom.

3 reasons why I wish I could tell you to vote for none of the above in the Clerk race, but I won’t

1. For the love of Pete, would someone return a damn email?

I know I’m not anyone that important, it isn’t like I contribute money to that many (if any campaigns). But, I emailed both campaigns months ago about what I consider to be a pretty big issue. And nothing. Not even an “I got your email, I’ll get back to you later” or a “No, this isn’t that big of a deal.”

Just silence.

2. Could you make the race any less relevant to voters?

This race is so damn insular, the one time (one time!) I ever received any communication about this race from anyone connected to the campaigns, it highlighted an issue so low and degrading, that I would never repeat it here. Suffice to say, this race has been issue free.

Even the one difference that the campaigns bring up publicly is about an internal court system. Really? An internal office data management system? Wow. Killer stuff.

Here’s a better issue to chew over.

3. I feel like I shouldn’t even be voting in this election.

This post is starting to become a trip around my own favorite issue, but be patient with me. Yes, I feel that public access to court records should be easier than it is and that county clerks should serve the public in this regard.

And, when I poked around, the Whatcom County clerk provided the best answer to why he makes court records free and searchable online:


We wouldn’t charge for someone to come into the office
to look at a file. If they chose to make copies, there would be a cost
and staff time. I believe it actually saves money by freeing up staff
time to do more important tasks. We have had significant reductions in
force over the past several years. Further, it provides equal access
regardless of financial resources.

The difference here is that the clerk in Whatcom county is appointed, while the clerks here are elected. I’m not sure it makes sense, but that means an appointed clerk is more willing to provide for the public than an elected one.

The only reason this makes sense to me is that an appointed clerk would possibly see their role as providing services to the public and the county as a whole. While, an independent, elected clerk would be interested in protecting their own budget and the structural power of their office. So, a creaking and old document management system that doesn’t serve the public, but rather charges them for public documents, possibly makes sense.

So, I suggest you vote in this election and vote for Linda Enlow. At the very least, she seems like she’s willing to change the office.

But, what we really need is a clerk that is willing to go out on a limb like the Whatcom County Clerk. And, we need to change the law that allows clerks to charge crazy fees for public documents.

But, in the end, support a Home Rule effort for Thurston County. This would allow us to rewrite how Thurston County government operates. And, if we decided to change the clerk position to an appointed one, we could do that.

There’s no paywall to public records in Whatcom County

So, there shouldn’t be one anywhere else.

If you’re looking for public documents from the Thurston County Clerk (or from practically any other county clerk in Washington State) you need to pay exorbitant fees. Like almost $30 for downloading a 16 page document from a public database.

But, not in Whatcom County. The Whatcom County superior court maintains a public database that offers direct access to court filings with no charge. As it should be.

Here is a link to the Whatcom County Superior Court database. Before searching for court documents, you need a case number, which you can search by individual name or business name here.

Once you plug in a case number you’re interested in, you are given direct access to the entire court record.

What in most counties is an unnecessarily arduous and expensive process, is simple and free in Whatcom County. 
I emailed the Whatcom clerk, Dave Reynolds, about his county’s choice not to charge, and he responded:

This system was in place before my time, but I fully support it. We feel
it saves on both staff time and foot traffic into the court house to
obtain documents. We wouldn’t charge for someone to come into the office
to look at a file. If they chose to make copies, there would be a cost
and staff time. I believe it actually saves money by freeing up staff
time to do more important tasks. We have had significant reductions in
force over the past several years. Further, it provides equal access
regardless of financial resources.

Providing for free what should already be free not only makes it easier on the clerk but provides equal access. That sounds great.
This county shows that we don’t really need to charge $4 transaction fees plus $.25 per page for public documents. Even though state law allows clerks to collect expensive fees for public documents (much more than what you’d pay for a document from any other part of government), Whatcom County doesn’t.
An interesting wrinkle is that what also makes Whatcom County different is that it doesn’t have an elected clerk watching over court records. Whatcom County rewrote its county charter in the late 1970s and rolled the function of the clerks office into the superior court. I might be reading into that fact a bit too much, but having to support an entire other office aside from just the courts probably justifies keeping open as many revenue streams as possible.
I emailed both candidates for Thurston County Clerk about what they thought of the public records paywall, neither of whom have written back yet.
What Whatcom County shows is that there is really no reason (other than just bringing more money into a specific county office) to charge so much for public records.
These aren’t private documents, there is no reason the clerks’ offices should be charging so much for them. From RECAP the Law:

We are a nation of laws. Our law is created not only via legislation,
but also through the adjudicative process of the courts. Whereas we
generally have open and free access to the statutes that bind us, case
law has had a more mixed history. Earlier experiments in secret proceedings did not go well. Western law subsequently developed strong precedents
for access to judicial proceedings — citing the importance of
transparency in promoting court legitimacy, accountability, fairness,
and democratic due process. When the law is accessible, “ignorance of
the law is no excuse.”

The public interest is not served when only those who can afford it can have access to what goes on in our courts.

The paywall to public records in Washington State

If you request a digital public record from a city, ditch district, or state agency in Washington State, they’re instructed to turn it over to you for free.

If you request a public record from a court, say a 16 page court filing on a medical marijuana case, that is going to cost you nearly $30. For a record that already exists in a database.

Until recently I’d assumed Thurston County was a special case. That our clerks office was one of the few charging outrageous fees for public records. But, because of a bill passed in 2005, every county clerk in Washington State is required to establish a paywall to digital public records.

Being able to read a 16 page public document shouldn’t cost almost $30.

Court funding in 2005

SB 5454 was introduced to the legislature in January after years of discussions and meetings by judges and other court officials throughout Washington. The Board for Judicial Administration established a task force on court funding in 2002. At that point, judges had complained that local governments routinely stripped courts of funding when times got tight.

The idea was to give local and other courts more stable and dedicated funding. After just over two years of meetings, the end result was a bill that increased existing fees established a long series of new fees for citizens interacting with the courts.

One of the fees included being able to access county clerk records:

For preparing a certified copy of an instrument on file or of record in the clerk’s office, for the first page or portion of the first page, a fee of five dollars, and for each additional page or portion of a page, a fee of one dollar must be charged. For authenticating or exemplifying an instrument, a fee of two dollars for each additional seal affixed must be charged. For preparing a copy of an instrument on file or of record in the clerk’s office without a seal, a fee of fifty cents per page must be charged. When copying a document without a seal or file that is in an electronic format, a fee of twenty-five cents per page must be charged. For copies made on a compact disc, an additional fee of twenty dollars for each compact disc must be charged.

Certified copy for lawyers vs. non-certified for me

I highlighted the passages up there that I consider important for this discussion. The fee for a “certified” copy many be high, but that is because there is an extra level of human review for those copies. Only certified copies of court records can be used in courts, so lawyers accessing those records need to have them looked at by a clerk official before they’re deemed certified.

On the other hand, non-certified digital versions (which can’t be used in court and are only informational) have a fee of 25 cents per page. This is where the paywall to public records goes up.

Let’s take a step back and talk about what sort of records we’re talking about. Clerk records include any sort of action or filing with a local court. These could be a lawsuit filed against your town’s largest employer. It could be a court order against an elected official. These are the raw data or an entire portion of our government, and they are hidden behind a special paywall that no other public record in Washington is allowed to use.

Like the Thurston County Clerk’s office, many county clerks maintain a database of all clerk records. If you made a similar request to a non-court government agency with a similar database, the Washington Administrative Code strongly suggests that “(t)he agency cannot attempt to charge a per-page amount for a paper copy
when it has an electronic copy that can be easily provided at nearly no
cost.”

PRA vs. Common Law

As surprising as it may sound, court records are not covered under the Public Records Act. That said, “common law right of access to judicial records is well recognized in this country.” This means, that while no legislation exists specifically allowing public access to these kinds of public documents, enough traditional and case law exists to assume there is a right.

That said, there obviously isn’t enough of a right to make it easy for citizens to access their own court records. You should have to pay almost $30 to read a 16 page court filing in a case regarding statewide ballot initiative.

Easy fix

The fix is easy. All we need to do is drop the fee for non-certified copies of court records that already exist in a digital format.

This wouldn’t exactly be a hit to the budget of county clerks throughout the state. When I contacted my clerk last summer, I learned that while it cost $60,000 to maintain the entire records system, requests only brought in about $40,000. And, just over a quarter of those documents came through the sytsem’s online database (or ecommerce system).

Even if half of the e-commerce documents were non-certified, then it would be a very small portion of the income coming from citizens literally looking to read a public document. The vast majority of the fees would be from lawyers or other folks looking for useable in court certified documents.

Public information should be free and why I’m watching the Thurston County clerk race

If we pay to maintain a database of public information, we should charge prohibitive fees to simply access that information.

Some background at “The paywall to public records in Thurston County” Part 1 and Part 2.

For the first time since 1990, there will be an open race for Thurston County Clerk. The clerk is the interdependently elected official who provides administrative support for our local court system. So, if you want a copy of court fillings or some other court record, you go through the clerk.

But, like I pointed out in the links above, that could run you $30 for a 16 page document. And, this is just for downloading the file.

So, the clerk’s race is the one race I’m watching this year.

Right now there are two candidates filed at the Public Disclosure Commission, Yvonne Pettus and Linda Enlow. Both Pettus and Enlow have years of experience in county clerk like offices, both of whom serving as chief deputy clerk under the current clerk at different points. Actually it seems like Pettus replaced Enlow in 2012 as chief deputy clerk.

In case you were wondering, Gould made a $200 donation to Pettus, so she’s apparently endorsing her current chief deputy.

Pettus’ website is pretty stale and Enlow currently has no website at all. So, trying to figure out which one puts more emphasis on public access is pretty hard.

The people behind the RECAP project talk a lot about why public access to court records matters. They’re of course talking about federal courts, but even in our medium size Puget Sound community, this should matter.

I’d argue that it matters more here because there are a lot more resources to create an popular tool like RECAP to open up a closed system like PACER (the federal court record database). But, here in Thurston County, I doubt we’d be able to muster that kind of support.

So, we would depend on a good county clerk to ensure public access to public documents.

The paywall to public records in Thurston County (Part 2)

Read part one here. But, just in short court records are somewhat public in Washington State. Protected if not by written law, but by legal tradition. Also, they’re expensive in Thurston County. To the point that they might be providing more revenue to the Clerk’s office than they cost to provide.

So, here’s some additional additional thoughts about how to change and what to change:

1. Other portions of Thurston County provide public records in a similar fashion at no direct cost to the user. For example, the Board of County commissioners provides records going back through the early 20th century online for free.

2. Possibly provide non-certified court documents for free. Currently, there are two types of documents provided by the Clerk’s E-commerce system: certified (which are mailed) and non-certified (which can be downloaded. Certification is important to legal professionals, because it means the document is a true copy of the original. I suppose non-certified would be more important to folks like me, who are curious and would only read the documents as reference.

I also suspect that this wouldn’t cost much to implement. Because of the high barrier to access right now, most likely the bulk of the revenue from the E-commerce system comes from lawyers seeking certified copies.

3. If not on the open internet, make non-certified copies available through the library. Timberland Regional Library (of which I am currently a trustee, so full disclosure there) provides access to closed databases.

4. Apparently, the Clerk’s office has digitized documents going back to 1847. I cannot imagine the wealth of historic value locked up there. Currently though, you can only access documents back to 2000.

But, because the database in only usable on one browser (which is used by less than a third of internet users) and you can only search by case number, the historians use of this system is seriously limited.

5.  There is hope.

The County Clerk is an elected position. And, the current clerk is retiring. Her former deputy (Linda Enlow, no website) and current deputy (Yvonne L. Pettus) are both running for the position.

It is possible that our access to public records of the local courts could become a campaign issue. And, modernizing our access and making the system more usable could be possible under a new clerk.

The paywall to public records in Thurston County (Part 1)

Should it cost almost $30 to save a digital version of a 16 page public document?

While court records aren’t specifically referenced in Washington State’s public record laws (and here), there is a fairly well understood common law provided access to court filings. So, in short, there’s a public access right that predates Washington’s PRA. But, since courts aren’t cited in the PRA, they can set down pretty strict rules about what we have access to.

Now, let’s backtrack a little bit. Back in 2009, the Thurston County Clerk (the county-wide elected administrator of the courts) started a project to make court records available online. Horribly named the “E-Commerce” system, it only works (sometimes) on one browser (Microsoft Explorer), has only limited search options and it prohibitively expensive for anyone not willing to plunk down hundreds of dollars to access public records.

When I made a search back in February for records about a case concerning the legalization of marijuana, one 16 page filing would have cost me almost $30 just to view. This seems absurd for a transaction with minimal costs.

And, let’s be blunt. Even if court records are exempt from the PRA, the courts are an essential part of our government. So, if “(t)he people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them,” this should include the courts.

But, this Thurston County isn’t at all unique in asking for inordinate sums for courts records. In fact, the federal court system (using a tool call PACER on the web since 2001) that has been similarly criticized for its  cost to the user and arcane interface.

From Reason Magazine in 2012:

Not everyone, however, is so pleased with PACER, which is an Internet-based service that allows attorneys, litigants, and other interested parties to access docket sheets, judicial opinions, and other documents related to federal cases. “Its user interface sucks,” says Carl Malamud, an open government gadfly and founder of public.resource.org. “Browsers aren’t supported properly. There’s no API. There’s no batch access.” 

But perhaps what galls Malamud and other PACER critics most is the system’s access fees. For the last several years, Malamud and various others, including Steve Schultze, associate director of Princeton University’s Center for Information Technology Policy, have been insisting that the government is spending way too much to develop and maintain PACER given its limited functionality, while charging users way too much to access it.

The same Reason article points out what a cash cow PACER has become for the federal courts, bringing in millions of each year. Ironically, a significant portion of that is from Justice Department lawyers, making the PACER system a defacto tax payer supported system.

In a similar vein, Thurston County’s E-commerce system (despite the high costs to access) could apparently be paying for itself. From a 2013 budget document, the total cost of records keeping in the Clerk’s office is about $60,000. According from an answer emailed to me by the Clerk’s office, the total revenue from the E-commerce system has grown slowly from about $41,000 in 2010 (its first full year) to $48,000 in 2012 (the last full year).

Now, it occurs to me that the E-commerce system is just a small portion of the records keeping system at the Clerk’s office. This graph from another budget document would seem to back up the split between the E-commerce documents and other documents provided by the Clerk.

While the number of documents provided dropped off significantly in 2011, the number of E-commerce documents has stayed steady. Despite this, E-commerce documents only make up less than a third of the overall load. This would seem to indicate that the system providing less than a third of the load is paying for more than two-thirds of the budget.
I could be wrong, but that’s what it looks like to me.

© 2025 Olympia Time

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑