Jeffrey A. Ware


This Note analyzes the facts and reasoning behind <em>Clarke v. Tri-Cities Animal Care & Control Shelter</em>'s agency holding, explains how the court was wrong to use and then misapply the <em>Telford</em> functional-equivalency test, discusses the consequences of subjecting government contractors to the PRA, and offers solutions to remedy the mistakes in <em>Clarke</em>. To begin, Part II reviews the facts of <em>Clarke</em> and the requirements of Washington’s Public Records Act. Part III then examines the evolution of Washington’s <em>Telford</em> functional-equivalency test as applied up to, and through, <em>Clarke</em>. Part IV explains the several reasons why <em>Clarke</em> was wrongly decided and how the result produced a dangerous precedent. Finally, Part V recommends solutions that prevent future holdings similar to <em>Clarke</em> while remaining faithful to the PRA’s purpose.