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.

State Should Close Loophole to Public Disclosure Law

Last month, Seattle Times reporter Emily Heffter had a nice scoop: Mayor Mike McGinn sent a series of text messages to his old friend and Sierra Club colleague, City Council member Mike O’Brien, to vote against council member Tim Burgess’ proposed panhandling law. As we were the first to report, O’Brien initially opposed, then supported, and finally voted against the legislation.  McGinn’s lobbying helped dismantle what would have been a veto-proof majority.

Curious what, specifically, McGinn had said to O’Brien (and how O’Brien had responded), I filed a public-disclosure request for all text messages between the two in the days leading up to the panhandling vote. Heffter’s article only quoted O’Brien’s recollection of the texts.

Electronic messages between elected officials—in fact, any written communication to or from elected officials, in any medium—are a matter of public record under state public records law. However, text messages, as I’ve noted before, pose a new and interesting problem. Not only can they be easily erased, they exist only on the phones of the sender and receiver—which is why the only record I received “responsive to my request” from the mayor’s office was a single page out of McGinn’s cell phone bill showing that he had sent  19 texts to O’Brien in two days, including eight logged at 7:40 pm the night before the vote. (The council has not yet responded to a request for O’Brien’s texts).

That’s interesting, sure—who has fingers dexterous enough to send eight text messages in one minute?—but it doesn’t answer my actual question: What did McGinn say, how did O’Brien respond, and was his pressure effective in making O’Brien switch his position on such a major vote? This type of lobbying on civic issues is generally part of the public record (for example, emails between elected officials). Not anymore?

I sort of expected I wouldn’t get much of a response—despite the fact that the city attorney’s office has said unequivocally that text messages are public records, I ran into a similar wall when I asked for Burgess’ text messages in February, when I was told that he had erased his messages and that his cell provider did not store message content in its system.

In theory, elected officials could go the extra mile and copy down their text messages (or cut and  paste them into emails from their smartphones, which nearly every elected official now has), but in practice, they don’t, and communications that by law are public are lost forever.

Elected officials are communicating by text more and more—both with each other and with constituents and reporters. The text loophole is a new way for our elected representatives, intentionally or inadvertently, to skirt public disclosure  law, and it’s something the state needs to address sooner than later—before something more important than the mayor of Seattle imploring an old friend to switch his vote slips between the cracks.




  • Timothy

    I, actually, think we are getting ridiculous in the “open government” department. I mean, McGinn and Obrien could have had a face-to-face conversation; does the public think that it should be allowed to see any and all communications between two individuals?

    If not, why not? How is face-to-face communication different than texting, relative to this issue? I mean, I get why the press wants it, but aren't we just going to far here?

    At some point, even elected officials need to be able to discuss things “off the record,” where they can work out their public positions.

    Open and transparent government should mean that specific actions aren't taken outside of the view of the public. But, the entire thought process and every conversation leading up to those actions?

    That seems counterproductive to me, as it would tend to chill thoughtful conversation between elected officials.

  • davocate

    Technically cell phone calls could also fall under the PDA because they are sound recordings translated into digital form.

    Frankly the PDA could run afoul of the RCW 9.73 which protects our privacy.

  • thegeezer

    Ummm. These are public records, and destruction (deleting them) is a FELONY.

    Geez, no surprise, Felons hold elective office.

    they need to be edumacated NOT to delete these

  • jeff

    In the words of Al Gore there is no controlling legal authority which makes elected officials save their texts.

  • Moderation in all things

    the real issue is do we think everything should be in public, or not, wehn councilmembers talk, think, make deals, formulate ideas, express worries, try out arguments, hash things out amongst themselves.

    If we do think it should all be public, why not lapel worn cameras to broadcast all conversations live? There's no real reason to only make public recorded conversations. For a few thousand dollars we can make sure to record everything!

    If we think that it's useful for them to have a zone of privacy to say things like “gee i fucked up on that position i took favoring the antipanhandling law. Mike, let's go over the arguments one more time. And btw do you think this hurts me with my base? what about you, mike, will you endorse me next time if i vote for burgess' position?”

    “Well Mike, you're wrong on the issue. You're screwing your base. It will play out badly for you. And yes dammit if you continue down this road of course I won't endorse you when you run again. You've been my pal for years now and what's gotten into you?”
    “I dunno Mike, Burgess seemed so compelling when he talked me into it. Also I just learned my father is sick and that's been weighing me down. My spouse is complaining that there's no let up, maybe I just need some time off.”
    “Well sorry Mike, we can't go on those long bike rides like we used to. Let's jsut go over the arguments one more time one by one and you just do what you decide is right. I can only tell you my perspsective, but I'm your pal I'm not here to pressure you. Let's start with the data about whether there is a problem or not. Ok, where's that survey Burgess is pointing to….”

    In reality exposing every single conversation that electeds have is not in the interest of democracy. IT's in the interest of bloggers who need a continual stream of juicy tid bits to feed to the blogospere, for sure. But every elected official is there, you can ASK them why they voted on something, and they run in elections, and there's tons of access. I'm not sure most of us would even agree that “deals” are bad. (“Now Mike, I know sierra club will ditch you next time if you support 520, what in heck are you doing!!??!!” = an implicit deal).

    The constitutional convention was in secret. Would it have improved the process to have 24/7 coverage of that bit of sausage making?

    Maybe we should spend more time focusing on the substance of the issues instead of trying to livestream the entire process.

  • Thoughtful

    So the solution for public employees, if they are working on sensitive subjects is to not write anything down?
    Try doing this in your job. It would be very unproductive. Yet, that is what the public is driving their elected officials to do for fear of media attention or a honest discussion getting blown out of proportion.
    Somewhere there has to be a limit… for both sides.

  • morning fizzy

    There is no law that requires elected or non-elected public employees to record or transcribe all of their conversations. With elected officials there is a question of private versus secret. In the case in point, I'm satisfied that we know that McGinn and O'Brien communicated before the vote. Did McGinn offer O'Brien something for his vote? We don't know, but that is a part of politics.

    The idea that public employees should have a right to privacy in their public work is problematic. Should they be able to have non-recorded conversations? Without a doubt they should, but they clearly don't have the right to govern in secret. Their private lives should not be subject to public disclosure and they aren't.

    Elected officials aren't allowed to have private meetings under the public meetings laws, that doesn't violate their right to assembly.

    Although ECB is most concerned about the elected public servants, the bigger issue is really with the bureaucrats that actually run the government. Communication between the non-elected public servants needs to disclosable if its in writing, any form of writing. Their meetings should have minutes and those too should be disclosable.

    I would suggest that when in session the SCC should ban private communication devices (cell phones, iPads, etc.) as the public should know that two or more members are communicating during a public discussion before a vote.

  • http://twitter.com/nigelherbig Nigel Herbig

    I have an app on my phone which automatically backs up all my texts to email. Sure, it's an Android phone, but I'm sure apps exist for blackberry and iPhone users to do the same.

  • morning fizzy

    Don't think so. The conversations covered are private ones. When working as a public servant, the communications are public.

    If phone calls are taped, either a warrant is necessary or it must be announced. Normal communication in writing as a public servant is not private. I believe there have been rulings that private companies own the emails on their systems and can look at what their employs are saying and doing.

  • ericacbarnett

    The public records law does not refer to spoken conversations, but — according to the city attorney's office, which makes determinations on the act from the city — it does cover text messages; therefore, in my opinion, elected officials should be required to back them up. If these conversations were by email, they would be public and easily available.

  • Hans

    Most public officials have private email accounts where they conduct all their “off the record” business and don't put anything worth reporting in their public accounts. Private email accounts are a much more interesting/rich place to push for disclosure, especially if you using public computers, than chasing this texting stuff.

  • Timothy

    ECB…so, defend yourself and your view here a bit. You actually think it is in the public interest to have all of this, both text and email, available to public scrutiny? Do you think there should be any limits on public scrutiny of elected officials?

  • J.lee

    RE: 8 texts in one minute: Actually, if you go over the alotted 160 characters on most phones, it'll just run the text onto another message, and another. If he was typing the whole thing up for a while, and sent it, it would've split it into as many messages as necessary and sent them all simultaneously.

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

    Any written records should be saved. The law is binary as it's written.

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

    Try doing actual dishonest, unethical, or 'bad' deals voice-only, and see how far that gets you in the Success Department.

    The law needs to be binary: if it's not voice, it's subject to saving. Storage is piss cheap–literally, and every year it gets cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. There are scores of archival software, archival, and backup technologies available. Is there a technical hole on the text/SMS side? I don't know, but for anything else there is no technical reason why anything and everything can't be retained. I work in the field and in particular in a realm related to this.

    The SMS side needs to be looked into for simple logistics.

    For everything else, anyone who tries to tell you they can't save everything either has no idea what he's talking about or is a liar.

  • David Geffen

    live stream their every conversation. reality tv. put it on lifetime, make some money off of it!

    This week wwatch as mike and mike have a heart to heart about the panhandling law!

    Next week — see richard tell mike to go jump off a 520 bridge ramp.

    Brought to you by lifetime. “Politics in Seattle!”

    Might want to get some hunkier councilmembers though.

  • notafiree

    “Any written records should be saved”. so if Sally Clark texts her significant other to pick up the dog's medicine this *must* be saved and available for public consideration (forever?)!! many politicians use only a single device for personal and what might be thought of as “public” use. “too bad!!:”, you might say… as soon as you are an elected official then every “written” communication in your life must be preserved! (or as “thegeezer” is fond of repeating “(deleting them) is a FELONY”)

    my feeble point here is that a sane person would accept that there are modern world gray areas to be discussed here; and “the law is never binary” in practice (and heaven help if two elected officials should become a couple….) -sigh-

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

    There's a reason why in the business world you shouldn't use your extra communications device–like a corporate blackberry–for personal use. Politics and government service, however, are a different beast altogether. To use Clark as an example: she *chose* to be in public service and work under additional scrutiny. I can't FOIA my employers to see what texts my Vice President sent on the corporate blackberry, but I certainly have the right to do that for any blackberry the city (and I) paid for.

    The notion of government being 'private' or obfuscated from the public died with the first FOIA type law being passed. No one has to work in the public realm.

    If I was on the city council, and they gave me a Seattle Official Blackberry, I'd keep my private Sprint cellphone for calling my wife to see what to bring home for dinner, or to call/text my friend to see if he wanted to go the Mariners on Sunday. I'd not text Burgess about official business on my Sprint phone, and I'd not take calls from Josh or Erica on my personal cell phone number anymore than I'd take or make calls to my wife on my Seattle Blackberry.

    It's not that hard. People in the business world manage that little tiny juggling act daily and without trouble. If elected or appointed government employees can't make that distinction I'd question whether they should even be elected or appointed in the first place.

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

    “So the solution for public employees, if they are working on sensitive subjects is to not write anything down?”

    No, write down whatever you'd like. Just don't violate ethics rules or laws. It's no different than what employees in the finance realm in the private sector do daily.

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

    There should never be a scenario where meeting minutes are not public record. If it's about a human resources type scenario for an employee, that's still FOIA–the city has to choose to not disclose and then fight that in a court of law.

    Public service comes with more restrictions than private employment–the trade off is that you get to shape the world.

    That's just how it is.

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

    I want to see Licata and McGinn versus Burgess and Conlin in a tag-team cage match.