Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Council Members’ Text Messages Not Subject to Public Disclosure

City officials can get around public-disclosure law—which says that all communications by city officials on public issues are subject to public records requests —by sending text messages instead of emails, even though texts are technically subject to the same disclosure laws as all other communications by public officials.

In an email response to a public records request for Seattle City Council Member Tim Burgess’ text messages—an experiment I decided to do after receiving numerous responses to questions I’d asked of city officials via text, targeting Burgess because he texts frequently—City Clerk Catherine Moore noted that Burgess “did not retain copies of text messages sent or received for [the] time period” requested, and that “Message content is unavailable from his cellular carrier. As per AT&T policy the content of SMS messages (text) and MMS (multi-media text messages) are not stored by their systems.”

Moore’s response did include a copy of Burgess’ cell phone bill. A couple of phone numbers that jumped out: Local political consultant Christian Sinderman and council central staff director Ben Noble.

Moore also attached a copy of an affadavit by AT&T records custodian Frank Yanez stating that “The actual content of text messages is not stored. Those records are not available. The stored records of AT&T are a date/time and a to/from whether it’s a telephone call, a text message, or a data usage record.”

City Attorney Pete Holmes’ office—which oversees public records law for the city—says that text messages sent by public officials are subject to public disclosure. However, Washington state public-disclosure law did not anticipate text messages, a form of communication that exists only in users’ phones. Holmes’ spokeswoman Kathy Mulady says she didn’t think the city had ever provided text messages in response to public records requests in the past.

Am I saying Burgess was intentionally trying to skirt the law? Of course not. (As I said, I only targeted him because he’s such a prolific texter). But given city officials’ increasing use of texts to communicate with staff, reporters, and each other, it’s alarming that this form of communication isn’t subject to the same disclosure laws as letters, blog posts, and emails.


  • gloomy gus

    This was very thoughtful of you. That's quite a loophole, all righty.

  • bryanglynn

    As I recall, similar issues came up when voicemail and email first came into common use. You might want to look into Seattle records retention policy for documents generated in the courss of public business.

  • phil

    So their response is “we don't save them”? Your question should then be why not, you save email and products are available to make it just as easy to do.
    http://www.textguard.com
    http://www.treasuremytext.com
    http://www.dotfred.net

  • notafiree

    yeah! if a city council member so much as farts in morse code we should have a solid record of it! we pay their salaries so every subvocal syllable is ours ..ours! oh and typing of that, any progress with getting the records of McGinn's staff's continued use of non-city “personal” iPhones and non-microsoft equipment to get around these rules?

  • justinp

    I bet if Kwame Kilpatrick had a chance to do it all over again he would use AT&T!

  • Zander

    The Council has a long oral tradition. Things are said in private and understandings emerge from that. Is that news to anyone?

  • More Important Things

    Oh hell, get a life people!

  • ProphetofTruth

    I think text messages on city phones are subject to public disclosure. If these conversations are documents of negotiations, it should be done in daylight to force accountability and propriety.

  • Teslick

    Notice the issue, though: the City Attorney says that text messages should be kept; the City Clerk says the City doesn't. While Phil is right, there is a way to preserve texting, I imagine deploying such as system for Seattle would be very expensive. However, Phil's question of “Why not” should be answered. I'm surprised this issue hasn't come up before.

    Where things could get problematic (and interesting) is if officials use the myriad of instant messaging clients on their phone and/or use a personal phone for messaging.

    The Open Records law is quite expansive, but certainly wasn't written with the many ways society communicates today in mind.

  • insideago

    See if Advokat can weigh in on this. As someone with some knowledge of the public records law, RCW 42.56, I'm of the opinion that courts might think that texts involving city employees communicating about government business–whether on their personal phones or city-owned phones–are public records and subject to disclosure. If you care to litigate that, Erica, I bet you could find a lawyer to do it on contingency and earn you a tidy little settlement to help publicola defray some business costs. the Times and TNT do this stuff all the time. I'm just sayin'

  • Selma

    So the City Council has found a loophole to voyeurism-as-journalism. I'm not terribly upset about that.

  • undisputed truth

    wow- I almost thought a whole day would go by without Burgess getting a mention in publicola

  • Mr. X

    If they're doing a lot of public business by text, they should be using City phones and the City should be using the software to archive it. Period.

    Kudos to ECB for pursuing this.

  • morning fizzy

    Good job ECB.

    The SCC should outlaw doing business in writing on private systems. Notes from calls should be retained but obviously verbal communication will always be hard to track.

    I hope Holmes at a minimum suggests a law for the council to pass that will make texts available.

    BTW the mayor of Detroit was nailed by text messages. How was that done? Are the Blackberry texts kept and for how long?

  • they don't even keep e mails!

    Lawyer here. The statement that “all communications by city officials on public issues are subject to public records requests” is flat wrong, nothing in the public records act mandates that officials keep any records. While one would say that's too bad, the law should mandate storage of everything, it doesn't at present.

    Second point. I have had public records act requests for e mails denied on the ground that they are not kep anywhere and there's no backup copies either.

    Let me repeat: official city responses are that they do not keep e mails. They only keep e mails they flag at the time. Not all e mails. When pressed for back up copies, they say they don't have them.

    Third point. Instead of the laborious process of requesting and searching and providing or objecting following by litigation and attorney time, why not just put everything that is disclosable on a public website and end the wrangling and actually provide full disclosure?

    That's what they fear the most. Many government have gone digital presicely because they can then claim the data is not kept or is not retrievalbe and litigants then need to hire computer forensic experts at $5,000 a pop to obtain discovery into govt. systems and probe them and argue and prove the govt. is lying (the pra official will commonly just take the word of some systems person that “oh that's not really retrievable” when in fact it is, just not easily; then the official response is incorrect but you have to litigate for 2-4 years to prove it, at great expense.)

    Just put it all on line and we wouldn't be having these issues.

  • cosstaffer

    As far as e-mail is concerned at the City Of Seattle. The City has purchased Mimosa NearPoint for e-mail records retention. The system is being set (for most) so that the city employee must determine how long the record needs to be kept. If the employee does not properly archive (wrong retention) or does not archive the City's e-mail policy of auto deleting e-mail at 45 days takes effect. The e-mail is backed up for 14 days after which those backups are overwritten.

  • Comment

    I can see the headline at The Onion right now: “Big News: Smoke Signals at Mayor's Office Not Retained — City Official Says Smoke Dissipates Over Time, Very Hard to Control!”

  • Perfect Voter

    Alarming indeed! The time has clearly arrived to record and save all text messages sent and received by every elected official, and to be consistent, record and transcribe all phone calls and voice messages sent and received by all electeds.

    And then when that is accomplished, we should require all electeds to wear microphones that allow all their conversations to be recorded and later transcribed, at least conversations during work hours and when engaging in any discussion regarding public issues.

    Only then will the people be fully able to study and judge the work of their elected officials.

  • notafiree

    Exactly! Then after that's in place then we require that they all wear mobile electroencephalogram telemetry so that they can't have unrecorded public thought processes. Never forget: we elect public officials because we're contracting them to be our trustworthy representatives – that doesn't mean that we should actually trust them!

  • szilagyi

    These can be trivially saved. If a technical solution exists (even if it's commercial) they're legally required to save these.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    Why are we giving employees the ability to set this themselves? It should be a blanket non-negotiable policy of x time frame.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    Hey Erica, you got yourself a story right here in the comments from “cosstaffer” who said:

    “As far as e-mail is concerned at the City Of Seattle. The City has purchased Mimosa NearPoint for e-mail records retention. The system is being set (for most) so that the city employee must determine how long the record needs to be kept. If the employee does not properly archive (wrong retention) or does not archive the City's e-mail policy of auto deleting e-mail at 45 days takes effect. The e-mail is backed up for 14 days after which those backups are overwritten”

    1) City staff, elected or otherwise, are able to determine what mail should comply with data retention laws. Fail right there.

    2) They only save mail for 45 days. So, in other words, if you want to get up to shenanigans using official resources, you have a 45-day statute of limitations apparently.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    Blackberry IIRC if you use Rim's services are stored 3rd party, so you'd have to check with Rim Inc or whatever their name is.

    You can however hook Blackberry into Exchange, and retain/manage your systems locally, in which case that's down to your mail/blackberry admin.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    I wasn't going to mention this, but what the hell:

    I recently did a FOIA with the City Attorney's office for all of Carr's correspondence about Faire Gallery. I got one general document, but was told no electronic (mail) records were kept, despite at least one local blog posted about Carr's mails with them on the subject.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    Perhaps it's time for an expansive and simply worded city-level records law:

    “All electronic communications by city employees conducted through equipment paid for or owned by the City of Seattle and all subsidiary municipal agencies will be retained for a period of no less than 10 years. There is no exemption for the type of devices involved.”

    Something similar for voice, with an exemption except for 911-type calls where we don't retain the actual voice live telephone calls (which would be absurd even for open records laws, at least as of 2010 technology levels), but keep all other markers/records of the calls: who called who, when, and so forth.

  • notafiree

    This seems quite sensible. But won't these villains then just shift all their nefarious schemings to their own privately held devices? You have to think at least two steps ahead if you're going to catch these “publicly elected officials” up to no good. After-all, we're talking about Seattle here! this ain't no backwater place of simple innocence like the New York state capitol or some-such place.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    You can't legislate against every eventuality in technology–it's a lost cause before you even begin to think about it given progressive speed of change in technology–but you can toss out broad strokes to minimize exposure. Let's pick on Tim Burgess for a hypothetical example.

    We pass a tighter law, like I wrote. Tim's texts, official mail, and call records–all saved ten years if done on city equipment or connectivity.

    He decides to use Gmail to do some city business–OK, fine, but if caught and it's nefarious, whammo. You're screwed.

    But that aside, such laws can't account for what people do on their own time or at home. What if all Tim and McGinnn buy personal cell phones to do illicit planning calls? What if they're anonymous pre-paid phones? What if they only use them from inside their own homes?

    You can't plan for everything.

    We could always make them live 24×7 in some David Blaine type transparent box in Westlake Center, I suppose.

  • notafiree

    Damn right! Why we should assemble an official committee of vicious attack dogs to watch every move of our sinister leaders. …oh wait, we already have the SEEC, don't we?–*pff* they're a buncha milksops… plus we need a special blue-ribbon commission to watch these watchers! I nominate Joe Szilagyi (“tech person, writer, gamer, political junkie”) to be our protector in chief. go Joe go! you'll never turn eeevil – like Sally Bagshaw – that's for certain.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    I'd probably be first up against my own wall.

  • insideago

    True: many agencies don't *require* people to save e-mails. Does that therefore mean that they don't? Show me a single professional of any tenure with any organization who doesn't have any archived e-mails. The fact is that people save messages for reference, and if a request for the messages comes in while those messages exist, they are subject to disclosure.

    Of course, this doesn't mean that government officials don't routinely flout the law and say that they have nothing responsive when a request comes in despite their many e-mails on a particular subject. When they do so, though, they are in violation of the public records act. If a requester can prove that they actually have messages, the agency can be held liable in court.

    Believe it or not, in my experience most employees of state agencies try to comply with this law (I can't speak for counties and municipalities). The penalties for failing to do so are pretty steep.

    As for putting it all on-line, that's pretty impractical, if desirable in some ways. I'm curious if anyone out there knows how this can be done efficiently. Is this how scarce taxpayer dollars should be spent? The public records act is definitely broken, costing Washington State taxpayers millions most years in penalties, not to mention the staff time that goes into trying to be compliant. The system needs to be altered, but the legislature wasn't into it this year. Penny wise but pound foolish if I've ever seen it…

  • cosstaffer

    The idea behind having the employee decide what is and is not “disclosable” relates to proper training in records management. If they're trained properly, should not be an issue. At least that is the theory.

    The idea behind 45 days is that the City recieves a lot of e-mail. Disk space would quickly fill up on the back-end storage solution. It is a very fine, but very expensive solution. With tight budgets it's hard to justify the cost for mostly non-discloseable e-mail (personal items, junk mail….) they are not subject to FOIA.

    Some are of the opinion that ALL e-mail should be retained and let the lawyers sort it out…. are citizens willing to fund that? All questions that are out of my pay grade.

  • brnndwn

    I guess a question to ask is: is the infrastructure required to track *all* text messages and *all* emails really worth the taxpayer money that will be required to pay for the software and the storage necessary to store all of these? Consider that this effort would probably cost millions of dollars of technology, as well as a lot of money in employee/consultant time for implementation.

  • morning fizzy

    And who would decide what is relevant to keep?

    The law requires storing all kinds of hard copy which is much more expensive. Storage is cheap and city emails should be used to do city business, in fact it is an ethical violation to use city resources for personal uses. – the law excludes any use but it currently is not enforced as ethics believes that would be too hard for city workers to abide by. The law: – “Use or attempt to use, or permit the use of any City funds , property, or
    personnel, for a purpose which is, or to a reasonable person would appear to be, for other than a City purpose, except as permitted by Section 4.16.071;provided, that nothing shall prevent the private use of City property which is available on equal terms to the public generally”

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    Whether it's a good idea or not, there's a variety of easy technical tricks to put mail archives online in searchable and indexed web format. It's been easy for over a decade with mail lists.

  • sarah68

    Before all this trouble is gone to, inquiring minds (who apparently have the time to spend on this) could direct their accompanying bodies to attend City Council meetings and at least listen to what the Councilmembers actually say in public. Not too many people do that. Some interesting things get said in public without the necessity to resort to examination of emails. When all emails are demanded, they'll simply use their private cell phones. They may indeed do that now. They are human beings and they want to do their deals in some sort of privacy.