Should felons have access to public records? Yes and no

While we count Attorney General Rob McKenna as a strong ally in ongoing efforts at openness in government, we can offer only qualified support for his latest stand on the issue -- that felons who have not had their civil rights restored should not have the same rights to public records that other people do.

Well, yes and no.

Strangely enough, McKenna's brief finds open government advocates on the horns of a dilemma -- both agreeing with McKenna about abuse, but apprehensive about shutting access to records.

There's no questioning that some inmates are abusing requests, but is the answer overreaching restrictions that could also shut off legitimate requests? We think not. Elimination of records access is a thicket one enters with great caution.

McKenna's newest position is outlined in a friend-of-the-court brief that has been filed with the state Court of Appeals in a case concerning an imprisoned arsonist who's been trying to dig up information on the judges, lawyers and corrections officers who helped put him behind bars.

Allan Parmelee was convicted in 2004 of first-degree arson. While in prison, Parmelee has made hundreds of requests, seeking records that include addresses, photos, pay, schedules, professional histories and birth dates of Washington State Patrol troopers and Corrections Department staff.

Certainly McKenna makes a good point when citing examples of such potential abuse by prison inmates with a lot of time on their hands, and frivolous pursuit of records being one means of burning it off. But ramifications in this case could reach far beyond Parmalee. There must be some latitude to allow inmates to have access to records pertinent to their cases. To do otherwise with an arbitrary ban on all record requests smacks of denial of due process of law.

The attorney general argues that inmates' access under the state Public Records Act is "fundamentally inconsistent with the objectives, needs and realities of the prison system and the legal status of inmates."

McKenna told The Associated Press in an article published last week that his brief is not in conflict with his advocacy on public records.

"The massive abuse of the Public Records Act by inmates is a threat to the use of the sunshine laws by legitimate requesters," he added.

Toby Nixon, president of the Washington Coalition for Open Government, said that after further review of McKenna's brief, "I feel even more strongly that something different needs to be done than what's being proposed."

While he agreed there are cases of abuse of public records by inmates, Nixon said the coalition had been hoping to meet with the Department of Corrections to look for solutions that would not affect broader access to records.

"I think that the community at large needs to figure out a way to deal with the abuses of the public records act so that the Legislature or courts, in a reactive way, don't do something that results in the inability of all the rest of us to have access to public records," Nixon said.

That strikes to the heart of the entire issue. In trying to deal with nuisances, let's not limit access to legitimate requests. Be very careful about the ramifications of limiting access to records based simply on someone's status as an inmate.

So, we'll side with both McKenna and Nixon.

The attorney general has legitimate concerns about abuses and those should be addressed.

But Nixon's approach, in the long run, better protects the spirit of the law approved by voters in 1972 -- that public records should be accessible except in very special, defined circumstances.

* Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Michael Shepard, Sarah Jenkins, Bill Lee and Karen Troianello.