DSHS - DEL - Hiding Information from Parents even after Attorney General's Office Said "Post it"

In Washington State for that last four years the Department of Early Learning (DEL) has refused to comply with a law the legislature passed in 2007, RCW 43.215.370.

See the email message below that I got through public disclosure from assistant attorney general (AAG) Grace O'Connor that the law is a "shall" and DEL must comply. The AAG copied the law into the email.

I highlighted that AAG's comments to DEL Service Area Manager, Josh Verville in Blue Text.

Here's the email...speaks for itself.


----- Original Message -----
From: O'Connor, Grace (ATG)
To: Verville, Joshua (DEL)
Cc: Essko, Ann (ATG)
Sent: Tue Oct 09 18:32:44 2007
Subject: Your questions, part one

Hi Josh –

As we discussed on the phone yesterday, I passed on your questions about Margo Logan/whistle blowing to Jenny Sheehan, an L&P AAG, and it sounds like you connected.

Your second question is whether DEL is statutorily mandated to post specific licensing actions on LCCIS—that is, whether you must post “valid for suspension” or if you can just post “valid.”  The following language is from a new DEL bill, which became effective July 2007 (Engrossed substitute senate bill 5317):

NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. REPORTING ACTIONS--POSTING ON WEB SITE. For the purposes of reporting actions taken against agency licensees, upon the development of an early learning information system, the following actions shall be posted to the department's web site accessible by the public: Suspension, surrender, revocation, denial, stayed suspension, or reinstatement of a license.

This seems to indicate that some kind of web posting is statutorily mandated (note the use of “shall”), though it doesn’t appear that you must use LCCIS to do so.  That is, as long as the information is easily accessible somewhere on DEL’s website, it needn’t be exclusively provided through LCCIS (though it might make the most sense, of course, to post these types of things via LCCIS).  In addition, it also appears that DEL must identify the type of action at issue – so simply saying there was a valid action without specifying what type of action occurred might run afoul of this provision. 

Your third question was whether DEL is obligated to take action against unlicensed providers.  This question can also be restated as: could DEL be liable for a failure to take action against an unlicensed provider?  This is a somewhat more complicated question than the previous one.  I can tell you that so far my short answer to that question is probably not, but I am still looking into it, and will have something to you by early afternoon tomorrow (Wednesday).  I just wanted to send Question #2 along so you could have it as you begin putting together your points for Jone.

Let me know if you have any questions so far.

Thanks,
Grace

Grace O'Connor, AAG
p. 360.586.6504