Understanding what someone is looking for in a public record request requires very specific work and communication.
The need for clarification emails — by which agencies can get specificity about a requester’s information ask — is a vital tool in meeting requests in a timely and accurate manner.
Since Q1 2023, the number of clarification emails as tracked by the Public Records Complexity index has dramatically increased. Using raw numbers, between Q1 2023 and Q2 2025, we saw an 85% increase in the need to clarify requests. When adjusted for volume, the total increase of clarification emails is 31% since 2018 — still a large increase in this aspect of public record complexity.
What factors are behind these increases in clarifications and what can agencies do to impact the drain on time and budget that these clarifications create?
“I am seeking all records referenced in an article that was in the newspaper last week about your organization.”
“I would like a copy of my ______ (note: it really is just an empty space in the request)”
Requests like these can leave staff scratching their head wondering how to respond.
Washington State is fortunate to have the MRSC — a nonprofit organization created and funded by state law — that provides free legal, finance, and policy guidance to the state’s towns, cities, counties, state agencies, and special purpose districts.
MRSC describes two different approaches, one for handling vague requests like those above and one for “complex” requests such as “please provide all emails sent by your department in the last two years” or “please provide any and all records related to the 10th Street project.”
But what’s the line between a request that’s vague and one that’s complex?
On the “complex” request (“Please provide any and all records related to the 10th Street Project”), MRSC counsels:
But had MRSC considered this a vague request, its advice for a first step would be:
“It is always a good idea to communicate with the requestor rather than proceeding with your search without making sure, to the best of your ability, that you’re gathering the records being sought.”
Seeking clarification from requesters can give guidance that’s more critical than what records are being sought. Sometimes records are not what people want at all — they want information. As one e-Discovery service provider puts it: “Communicate with the requester to narrow requests down to exactly what they want, because taken literally, public records requests could encompass hundreds of thousands of documents — and no one wants that.”
No one, apparently including some people that ask for just that in the first place. In a 2018 article, the American Bar Association (ABA) described how Snohomish County, Washington, received a request from a “Mr. Public Requestor” seeking all public records of any kind from all county-owned smartphones.
Under the MRSC’s definition, this would be a “complex” request. The county’s public records officer created enough of a strategy to estimate that it would take 12,000 hours to complete and started gathering the records. After 935 hours, Mr. Public Requestor walked away from the request, wasting $30,000 in staff time. Data from the Washington State Legislature’s Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) shows that in 2019, more than 15% of records requests made to the State Attorney General’s Office and more than 25% of requests made to the Department of Corrections were abandoned, and many other agencies also had high abandonment rates.
Requesters don’t generally have to state why they are making requests, though there are exceptions. But with requests rapidly increasing in complexity and getting more costly to process, being able to get more information about who is asking for data and why is an invaluable tool for narrowing the scope of requests or even turning potentially huge records requests into short information exchanges. Seeking clarification on requests can be the key to making connections with requesters that can short-circuit vague and complex requests.
In 2016, the Washington State Auditor’s Office issued a performance audit report on how records requests were affecting state agencies and local governments. Originally, the legislature had requested the audit because the state did not have an explicit method for charging requesters for copies of electronic documents provided. As Auditor staff delved in, they learned that a per-page electronic document cost was the least of the concerns. The report cites these examples of complex requests:
In 2015, the City of Kirkland received requests for
The Washington audit outlines how some states deal with the increasing number of broad and complex requests through public records law provisions that “permit a nuanced consideration of the nature of the request and the requester” — such as Illinois’ public records law that provides differently for responding to voluminous, recurrent, commercial, and unduly burdensome requests and requestors.
Outside of legal provisions, the Washington Auditor “identified practical actions state and local governments can consider taking to efficiently manage and provide public records without compromising their core business.” Their top recommendation? “Communicate with requesters thoughtfully and as needed.”
Whether a requester is a disgruntled citizen, attorney, media, or other organization, it’s often the case that they are expecting a “worst-case scenario.” They think they’re going to have trouble getting what they want, so they over-ask. Getting a personal clarification contact is almost always a welcome surprise that paves the way for the real issue to be identified and dealt with more efficiently and effectively than just proceeding with a request as it is first presented.
One such request ripe for clarifying with the requester was made to the State of Vermont in March 2020:
As the Washington Auditor put it: “Good communication practices can generally improve the requester’s experience, reduce unnecessary delays, and potentially avoid disputes and unnecessary costs.”
With the significant growth shown in the earlier chart, Granicus’ time-saving features like optimized intake, requester self-service, and response templates can help reduce the clarification email burden while also freeing records request managers up to do more positive, productive types of outreach and clarification – making connections and building trust with requesters which can ultimately save even more time.
Managing Requests for Public Records is Getting Harder. Now There’s PROOF.
Learn more about the index in the 2025 Public Record Complexity Benchmark Report.
