Court fails to adapt to time

• Published July 09, 2007

Just when court officials began catching up with 21st century technology, along comes Thurston County Superior Court Judge Christine Pomeroy and throws a monkey wrench into the mess.

The issue before Pomeroy was whether the state Department of Corrections should be forced to release electronic copies of information sought by a state employee.

Pomeroy said it's clear that paper copies of the records are disclosable under the law. But the judge said that there is nothing in the state law that requires agencies of government to release documents in electronic format even if those electronic records are within the agency's possession and control.

"There is no clear right to electronic copies under the Public Disclosure Act," Pomeroy said in her oral opinion offered immediately after attorneys argued the case. "I think it is a question that should be met by the Legislature, not the courts."

In this case it will cost the person seeking the Corrections information $8,900 for the paper copies. What a waste of money and resources. Compare that to the costs of burning the information onto a CD and mailing an electronic version.

Correction officials say the reason they don't want to turn over electronic copies is because they have no way of deleting private Social Security numbers from the data - information they can black out on paper copies. It's hard to believe that information cannot be deleted from an electronic file.

Judge Pomeroy's decision is interesting especially when compared with the action of the Washington state Supreme Court three years ago.

In October 2004, the nine justices of the state's highest court adopted General Rule 31, which authorized county clerk offices to put records online - allowing certain information to be redacted, including Social Security, bank account and driver's license numbers.

Justices acknowledged with that ruling that individuals have different expectations of their government entities today. Individuals want to be able to sit at the home or work computer and with a simple click of the mouse scroll court records and other public documents.

Public records are just that - public records. That's why the nine Supreme Court judges adopted a court rule that says, in essence, records available to the public at the courthouse also should be available electronically.

That had some lower court judges and court personnel dancing on eggshells. They raised concerns such as more cases of identity theft or predators scanning court records for future victims. That argument totally missed the point that anyone can walk in off the street today and see the same information on paper at the courthouse.

But the justices' rule on electronic court records does not hold the same sway as a law. And that's what Judge Pomeroy wants: A law that specifically says that government officials must provide electronic copies of records.

We believe agencies have not only the authority but the obligation under the disclosure act to release requested information in digital format. Unfortunately, Judge Pomeroy sees things differently. The Legislature can, and should, clarify the disclosure act to answer the judge's concern and make it clear that government entities can release electronic data.

It goes back to the Supreme Court standard: What's available on paper should be available electronically, too. This is, after all, the 21st century.