This bill amends RCW 42.56.140 to create the "public records exemptions accountability committee," a new 13-member panel appointed by specified officials (including the governor, the attorney general, the state auditor, and legislative leaders), with the governor selecting the chair. Members serve four-year staggered terms stated to begin August 1, 2007. The amendment therefore modifies existing law by establishing a new statutory committee and setting membership, appointment, term, and chair selection rules. The committee must develop and publish criteria and a schedule for reviewing public disclosure exemptions, meet at least quarterly with all meetings open to the public and open to input from interested parties, and review each public disclosure exemption to recommend continuing unchanged, modifying, scheduling for sunset review, or terminating the exemption. The attorney general’s office and the office of financial management provide staff support, the code reviser must provide an annual list of exemptions by August 1, and the committee must transmit its recommendations by November 15 each year to the governor, the attorney general, and the appropriate legislative committees and present them during committee assembly days. The text specifies procedural details such as convening the initial meeting by September 1, 2007, travel reimbursement rules for members by reference to existing RCWs, and cites the amendment to RCW 42.56.140 and related statutory references. Important context is missing or unclear in the extracted text: it does not show the prior law text for comparison, it contains historical dates (2007) without explaining their operation now, it does not state an effective date, and it does not define the term "public disclosure exemptions" or specify which legislative committees are the "appropriate committees."

If enacted, a 13-member public records exemptions accountability committee would be created to regularly review every statutory public disclosure exemption and recommend whether each should stay, be changed, be scheduled for sunset review, or be ended. That process would require the code reviser to list all exemptions annually, the attorney general and the office of financial management to provide staff support, and the committee to hold open, at least quarterly, meetings and publish review criteria and a schedule. The most directly affected parties are state agencies and any entities that rely on statutory exemptions (including local governments and media representatives), because their exemptions would be subject to ongoing, public scrutiny and possible modification or termination. Practical costs and responsibilities would shift to appointing authorities (governor, attorney general, state auditor, legislative leaders) for selecting members and to the attorney general’s office and OFM for staffing and logistical support, including member travel reimbursements where applicable. Agencies face the risk of losing or narrowing exemptions and therefore increased disclosure obligations; they and the legislature would also need to respond to the committee’s annual recommendations. Important implementation details are unclear from the provided text—several dates are historical (e.g., 2007), there is no stated effective date, and the statute does not define key terms or precisely identify the “appropriate” legislative committees—so how and when reviews would start in practice is uncertain.