Is there any reason that public records can not simply be stored in a way that allows anyone who is interested to find them online?

Well, besides the lack of will for it to be done, anyway.

@2 i think the problem is that there has to be certain retractions potentially on each document. automation can only go so far...

Hooray! Rubio came in a strong 3rd - only 1% behind Tump. The "more-reasonable" candidate will gain ground. The good people of Iowa deserve a round of applause.

4 comments in, and no one's called Clinton a corrupt war-mongering corporatist? are you still asleep, Slog?

@3: redactions?

@1 Governments have been caught abusing that type of system. For example when requested for emails on a specific subject, they consider each email a chargeable item rather than the single request.

Cities and other agencies have been poor stewards of the public's property ( data) in this case, they need to hire less consultants and a real librarian to figure out how to store and access valuable public documents.

When the voters approved the Public Disclosure law in 1976, the expectation was that citizens would request documents because they had an interest in their contents. Nobody ever contemplated that anyone would be making massive "give me everything" document requests "just because I can."

The problem with publishing, wholesale, every government record online is that you potentially violate individuals' privacy. Under the PRA, each record must be examined to determine whether any of the information needs to be redacted to protect the rights of third parties.

@9: Of course, and as a taxpayer I don't want cops ambushed and murdered. The recruit pool for new officers is way down. As taxpayers, that affects response times.

@ 5, We could play a round of honest headlines. How about:

49.9% of Elderly White Iowans Vote for Clintonian Kleptocracy

I guess what I am suggesting is that each document gets reviewed, what needs to be redacted is redacted, and then they are stored digitally for the public to peruse at their leisure.

Of course, this would require a large initial investment of manpower and funding, but it seems like it could save money over time, especially if people are trying to score political points by requesting every document they can.

Do "Reagan Democrats" still exist in the modern era, if in fact they every truly existed at all? Isn't this term just media shorthand for "middle-class suburban moderate independents"?

Does The Stranger actually check their stories before printing them anymore? From your NPR link:

"Sanders couldn't replicate Barack Obama's 2008 youth coalition.

The Vermont senator just couldn't match the strength of the youth vote that Obama marshaled in 2008. Just 18 percent of the vote came from 17- to 29-year-olds — down from a 22 percent share eight years ago. Among those, Sanders dominated, winning 84 percent to Clinton's 14 percent."

See the contradiction? A huge showing for Sanders among the 17 to 29 year old crowd, marginalized by a "it was a few points behind one other guy, so we're going to focus on that slight difference rather than the dominant majority of evidence to the contrary." duck blind. One that The Stranger embraced.

The Gates story is another one that a brief amount of work would have revealed as impossible. M$ has always had a huge bus culture. Gates memorizing license plates wouldn't have helped him determine anything. Too few employees ever drove.

Come on guys. Stop parroting the AP and UPI. Investigate your stories for their validity. Think, don't just post.

@14:
1. in what way is Hillary Clinton a thief? specifics, please.
2. are we in an Obamian Kleptocracy now?
3. if yes, how would Sanders prevent a Sandersian Kleptocracy?

@18: If they had the staff capable of doing any real journalism or original writing of any value, they would still do it. Why do you think everyone with talent left for greener pastures?

Oh, and the paper is WAY in the tank for Hillary, and will be spinning the news to make her seem inevitable (and make Sanders supporters seem like traitors) until the primaries are over.

To perform trend analysis, you need access to all the data. How would we know, for example about racial disparity in policing were it not for the ability of researchers to review all arrest records?

The correct solution to the problem of government creating more records than that with which they can provide the publicThe correct solution to the problem of government creating more records than that with which they can provide the public access is not to reduce public access by charging fees or capping staff time. access is not to reduce public access by charging fees or capping staff time.

Our government staff should not get to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for us to know. They need to stop creating busywork for themselves by co-mingling PRA-exempt and non-exempt information, causing the need for laborious redaction. They shouldn't conduct government business on personal devices or with private e-mail accounts. When they prepare a record for one person, they should publish it on the Web so the next person need not request it and wait. Planning for every new system that generates records should result in someone answering, "What will it take to provide public access to these new public records?"

#20, I fear I must admit, you have me there. Sgt. Doom is looking like a more neutral source of information than The Stranger. At least jumping at every shadow and calling it a monster is a consistent position.

@13:

Nobody wants that, but unfortunately, it is a real risk LEO's run; always has been, always will be. OTOH, if the legislation discourages potential recruits to pass up employment opportunities in Law Enforcement because they perceive they will no longer have a free pass to gun down innocent citizens without consequences, then I don't consider that a bad thing.

@26: We are.

The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created.

@13 "The recruit pool for new officers is way down."
[CITATION NEEDED]

@28 see @25

@27 - okay. So let's say you have somebody make a request for the social security numbers, dates of birth, and home addresses of every employee of the City of Seattle. Should that info be released?

@29: Here you go (and it's Fox free!):
Police Face Severe Shortage of Recruits
I'm sure you or Herr Bratwurst will find some contorted way to refute that.

@22: The Zika virus was isolated in Africa in 1947. Bill Gates was born in 1955. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you also need citations to confirm.

@30: See RCW 42.56.140 - public records exemption….

@31: No, that information is exempt from disclosure (42.56.250).

The PRA exemptions are still ambiguous, which is why police departments have to create their own policy. Example: the PRA states it's an invasion of privacy when release "(1) Would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (2) is not of legitimate concern to the public".

So who the hell determines that? John Doe gets in a car accident and his wife is mangled in the wreck. Cops with body cams and paramedics arrive and cut off her clothes, exposing her injured, naked body. If police just blindly post this to the web because open gov advocates are threatening to sue, they may face another lawsuit from John Doe.

The individual police agencies are forced to determine what is widely disseminated because our public records act from the 70s, the pre-internet age, is still ambiguous, outdated, and abused by open government advocates. It's also a common sense, PR nightmare for police to post this type of crap. That won't build public trust at all. In fact it'll do the opposite.

Regardless of the PRA, it's far too oversimplified to believe that publishing every exempt government record to the web is the solution. It's also costly and unnecessary for government agencies to do this.

@28:

If they're not ready, willing, and able to accept the incredibly high standards of responsibility that comes with being granted the power of life-and-death over ones fellow citizens, then yeah, they probably should forego considering a career in law enforcement.

@36 FTW (if anyone still says that or knows what it means).

@38:

Then we live with that fallibility, but we do so knowing it works in both directions. The people who accept that responsibility - and power - must needs recognize they are expected to adhere to a higher standard by virtue of their elevated position, but conversely that they may pay a higher price for failing to uphold it.

It wasn't all that long ago that most LEO's took pride in the fact they could go entire careers without ever once firing their service weapons in the line of duty. Nowadays, far too many seem to take pride in how many times they HAVE.

70% of caucus participants voted against Ted Cruz, and hebwas declared the winner. Is this a great country or what?