Curiouser and Curiouser...

Public Records Act and the City of Port Angeles

According to the Washington State Public Records Act (PRA) emails related to public business are subject to disclosure. Its why most agencies strongly encourage their elected, and hired, to ONLY use city assigned emails, on the city servers. Makes life for everyone easy, and gives the public the warm-fuzzies that there will be transparency.

Under RCW 42.56.010 a public record includes any information relating to the conduct of government prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency, regardless of physical form or characteristics.

Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that emails on private devices or accounts are public records if they discuss public business. Freedom of Information Act requires that these records are subject to a PRA request. Elected and employees are required to search their personal accounts/devices for responsive records if they conduct public business there.

(Of course information may be redacted, or withheld if they contain exempt information like attorney-client privilege.)

The Freedom of Information Act exists for a reason, three words: Accountability and Public Trust.

My initial public information request December 17, 2025:

“At time code 1:39 (approx) of the city council meeting, Councilor Suggs said she would send to the Mayor a proposed amendment from her “hotmail” email account, during an open public meeting.

This opens the door for my request to obtain all city-related emails that discuss public business, that exist on Councilor Suggs “hotmail” account. Both how she came to her amendment, and whatever other city business she is emailing to/from other people outside the public meeting…”

This created public records request W020554-121725.

I refined the request for dates between 12/17/2024 to 12/16/2025, and received the reply:

“Thank you for the clarification. I will forward this to Council member Suggs so she can conduct her search. In the meantime, she is collecting the responsive records from December 16, 2025 meeting. I expect to receive those records on January 6, 2026. We expect to complete this portion of the request on or around January 9, 2026.”

The first installment, consisting of 14 emails, all unremarkable, and ALL in .pdf format (and readable) arrived on January 9, 2026. On February 17, I reminded the clerk that I had only received a file called Installment 1, which seemed like it would be followed by an Installment 2. A reply was sent on February 24th:

“This email serves as notification from the City of Port Angeles, pursuant to RCW 42.56.520, that additional time is needed to respond to your request. The additional time is necessary to review materials requested and to determine whether any of the documents are exempt from disclosure.

It appears that some of the emails required redactions. When we provide the records, we will include a redaction log that contains the corresponding redaction number. We estimate that we will be able to respond on or around March 6, 2026.”

On April 27, 2026, I received two more installments, with the missive:

“Thank you for your patience. Copies of the requested documents are attached for your viewing, installments two and three. Please note we have provided an exemption log that identifies any records withheld and the corresponding RCW exemption authority.

The City has determined that this records request has been fulfilled because:

All copies have been provided.”

The two batches contain a great number of Outlook files (which I have not been able to open, Microsoft products are goofy). However, my request was for Hotmail emails. A smattering were offered in PDF’s and I could easily open these.

Most of the emails were regarding the lawsuit with Worthington, so all text is redacted. That’s fine. I understand that.

But, what struck me as strange was an email from the attorney representing the city in the lawsuit (January 27, 2025). Matt Segal, from Pacific Law Group, sent emails to private emails of four City Council Members. FOUR, NOT ALL SEVEN.

Whoops, here I go down the rabbit hole…..

NEW PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST

“I would like to know the official city policy on allowing City Council members using their private emails instead of city provided ones -- and if there is any penalty for doing so.

There is an email dated January 27, 2025 1:44pm from Matt.Segal@pacificlawgroup.com that is addressed to navarra.carr@gmail.com; katedexter2017@gmail.com; latrishaos@hotmail.com and lindsey@riseup.net

The contents of the email were redacted, however, it was clearly city business.

Why is city business being routed to personal email addresses, and why simply those four (and not the other three city council members)?

I would like all emails regarding city business from all four of the City Council email addresses listed in that email from Matt Segal for the period from 12/17/2024 to 12/16/2025.”

“Take some more tea,” the March Hare said to Alice, very earnestly.
“I’ve had nothing yet,” Alice replied in an offended tone: “so I ca’n’t take more.”
“You mean you ca’n’t take less,” said the Hatter: “It’s very easy to take more than nothing.” —Chapter 7, A Mad Tea-Party Alice in Wonderland-