American Civil Liberties Union of Washington v. Blaine School Dist. No. 503
| Decision Date | 09 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 38748-1-I,38748-1-I |
| Citation | 937 P.2d 1176,86 Wn.App. 688 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 118 Ed. Law Rep. 785 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON, a Washington nonprofit corporation, Appellant, v. BLAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 503, a Washington municipal corporation, Respondent. |
Laura Jean Buckland, Scott A.W. Johnson, Seattle, and Daniel Alan Raas, Bellingham, for Appellant.
John Timothy Slater, Bellingham, for Respondent.
Does the public disclosure act require that an agency mail copies of non-exempt and identifiable public records to a person who requests that such records be mailed? We hold that under the circumstances of this case, the agency was required to mail copies of the public records to the requesting party. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions.
In 1995, the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington (ACLU) sent two written requests for public records from its Seattle office to the Blaine School District office in Blaine. On both occasions, the District responded that it would make the records available for review and copying at its office in Blaine during its regular business hours.
In response to the District's second letter, the ACLU explained that it was unable to send a representative from Seattle to Blaine to inspect and copy the records. It also stated that it believed that the public records provisions of the public disclosure act (Public Records Act) required the District to mail copies of the records to the ACLU under these circumstances. The District refused to copy or mail the records.
Thereafter, counsel for the parties communicated by telephone and correspondence. The matter remained unresolved.
Roughly two months after the last correspondence between respective counsel for the parties, the ACLU commenced this action in the Whatcom County Superior Court. 1 It sought a determination that the District had violated the Public Records Act by refusing to mail copies of the records in response to the request. It also requested the award of attorney fees and the statutory penalty. 2
The District moved for judgment on the pleadings. In response, the ACLU moved for summary judgment. The court granted the District's motion, impliedly denying that of the ACLU. The court also awarded the District statutory attorney fees. The ACLU appeals.
We review this matter de novo because the record before the trial court on the motion for judgment on the pleadings consisted entirely of written materials. 3 Moreover, where the facts are undisputed and the only issues are questions of law, review is de novo. 4
The question of whether the Public Records Act requires agencies to mail copies of identifiable public records under the circumstances of this case is a question of statutory interpretation. We will not construe a statute that is clear on its face. 5 But where a statute is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation, we will construe the statute in order to give effect to the legislative intent. 6
The Public Records Act became law through Initiative Measure 276, which was approved by the voters in 1972. The Public Records Act is to be construed liberally: 7 The statement of public policy in the law creates the presumption that there will be full access to public records:
That, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy and of the desirability of the efficient administration of government, full access to information concerning the conduct of government on every level must be assured as a fundamental and necessary precondition to the sound governance of a free society.[ 8
Our Supreme Court recently set forth the principles guiding interpretation of the Public Records Act in Amren v. City of Kalama:
The Act reflects the belief that the sound governance of a free society demands that the public have full access to information concerning the workings of the government. The purpose of the Act is to ensure the sovereignty of the people and the accountability of the governmental agencies that serve them.
...
This court has found that the Act is a "strongly worded mandate for broad disclosure of public records."[ 9
The mandate of liberal construction requires the court to view with caution any interpretation of the statute that would frustrate its purpose. 10
Here, the facts are undisputed. The District does not argue that any of the requested records are exempt from disclosure. Moreover, it does not claim that it cannot identify what records are sought. The District does not contest that the requested documents are "identifiable public records" within the meaning of the act. Finally, the District does not claim that it would disrupt its operations to mail copies of the requested records to Seattle, as requested by the ACLU.
There is no dispute that the ACLU would pay the costs of photocopying. Also, the ACLU represented in its materials below that it makes many mail requests for public records each year and does not have the resources to travel to each agency in order to obtain copies of the requested documents. The District does not challenge these representations.
The District argues it discharged its duty under the Public Records Act by making its records available in Blaine during normal business hours to a requester officed in Seattle. According to the District, there is no requirement to mail copies of the records to the requester under these circumstances. We reject this argument.
RCW 42.17.270 provides in part: "Agencies shall honor requests received by mail for identifiable public records unless exempted by provisions of this chapter." 11 This dispute centers on the conflicting interpretations given to the italicized portion of the above quotation. The language is ambiguous. The District maintains that the language is limited to clarifying that it must respond to mailed requests by making the requested records available at its offices for inspection and copying. The ACLU argues that the language requires that agencies are required to mail records in response to a request when asked to do so. We must therefore construe the statute to give effect to the intent of the Legislature.
The legislative history for this statute supports the conclusion that agencies should mail requested records to a requester under the circumstances of this case. The requirement that agencies "honor requests received by mail" was added to the act by amendment in 1975. 12 A Senate Research Center staff memorandum prepared near the time the legislation was passed summarized this provision by stating that: "[t]his section is identical to both bills as it applies to requiring agencies to fulfill requests for public records via mail." 13 This statement can only be interpreted to require agencies to provide copies of identifiable public records by mail when requested to do so.
This interpretation makes sense, and the facts of this particular case demonstrate why. Here, the requester is officed in Seattle and could not send a representative to Blaine to obtain the records. Moreover, the requester stated the expense of such a trip would be disproportionate to the cost of the District's mailing copies to Seattle. The District's refusal to mail the documents in response to the specific request to do so and its insistence that the requester travel to Blaine to inspect the records are not based on a reasonable interpretation of the act. The District's position effectively denied access to the records. That is inconsistent with the policy of the act to provide full access to non-exempt public records.
The District has given us no reasonable explanation why under these circumstances we should give effect to its reading of the act. Indeed, under the District's interpretation, a resident of Spokane would be required to travel to Blaine to obtain public records during normal business hours. That cannot be a proper interpretation in view of the further statutory duty of the agency to give "fullest assistance to inquirers." 14
The District points to various provisions in the act that refer to "inspection and copying" to buttress its argument that it is not required to mail copies of identifiable public records upon request. Specifically, the District points to RCW 42.17.340(1), which provides for a show cause hearing where any person has been denied an opportunity "to inspect or copy a public record." As we understand its argument, the District maintains that this statute is proof that all it is required to do is to make records available at its office, no more. The District's literal reading of this provision is too restrictive and is inconsistent with the legislative intent of RCW 42.17.270 that we discussed above. Because the District refused to mail copies of the identifiable public records, it effectively denied the requester the opportunity to have access to the document. Access is the underlying theme of the act.
The District also argues that a federal case interpreting the Freedom of Information Act is persuasive here. In Nolen v. Rumsfeld, 15 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that FOIA did not require the Army to send the plaintiff the records he requested, only that it make the records available.
The state Supreme Court has declined to consider FOIA cases when interpreting provisions in the state act that differ significantly from the parallel provisions in FOIA. For instance, in Amren, the court rejected the City of Kalama's argument that FOIA cases applied to the issue of attorney fees under RCW 42.17.340(4). 16 The court noted that FOIA indicates that the court "may" assess attorney fees in favor of a prevailing record requester, 17 whi...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mechling v. City of Monroe
... ... 62011-8-I ... Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 ... October 26, 2009 ... [222 ... Bellevue John Does 1-11 v. Bellevue Sch. Dist. No. 405, 164 Wash.2d 199, 209, 189 P.3d 139 ... 6 As in Lindeman v. Kelso School Dist. No. 458, 162 Wash.2d 196, 202, 172 P.3d ... Civil Liberties Union of Washington v. Blaine School st. No. 503, 86 Wash.App. 688, 937 P.2d 1176 (1997) ( ACLU ... ...
-
Carpenter v. Elway
... ... Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 ... November 19, 1999 ... in the courts and delays in hearing civil cases.'" Nevers, 133 Wash.2d at 815, 947 P.2d ... RAP 7.2(e); Metropolitan Park Dist. v. Griffith, 106 Wash.2d 425, 439, 723 P.2d ... American Transit Ins. Co., 161 Misc.2d 57, 613 N.Y.S.2d ... See American Civil Liberties Union v. Blaine Sch. Dist. No. 503, 86 Wash.App ... ...
-
Smith v. Okanogan County
... ... Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3, Panel Ten ... February 8, 2000 ... Weber responded through his chief civil deputy that no such list existed and that ... American Civil Liberties Union v. Blaine Sch. Dist. No ... Blaine Sch. Dist. No. 503, 86 Wash.App. at 698-99, 937 P.2d 1176 ... We ... ...
-
Sargent v. Seattle Police Dep't
... ... No. 658964I. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1. Sept. 19, 2011 ... [260 P.3d ... records in the unsolved murder of prominent civil rights leader Edwin Pratt, who was killed in ... 20, 2010) at 2829. FN8. ACLU of Wash. v. Blaine School Dist. No. 503, 86 Wash.App. 688, 695, 937 ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...Alprin v. City of Tacoma, 139 Wn.App. 166, 159 P.3d 448 (2007): 16.3(4) Am. Civil Liberties Union of Wash. v. Blaine Sch. Dist. No. 503, 86 Wn.App. 688, 937 P.2d 1176 (1997): 2(3), 5.1(2), 6.8(2)(b), 7.2, 7.2(2), 16.2(1)(b), 18.4(2), 18.4(2)(a), 18.5(2)(d), 20.1, 20.2(1), 20.2(2) Am. Civil ......
-
§18.4 Attorney Fees
...seeking the disclosure of public records." Id. at 35; see also Am. Civil Liberties Union of Wash. v. Blaine Sch. Dist. No. 503 (ACLU I), 86 Wn.App. 688, 699, 937 P.2d 1176 (1997). In the earlier case of Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. University of Washington (PAWS I), 114 Wn.2d 677, ......
-
§18.5 Penalties
...to be awarded the statutory penalty. Amren, 131 Wn.2d at 37; Am. Civil Liberties Union of Wash. v. Blaine Sch . Dist. No. 503 (ACLUI), 86 Wn.App. 688, 698, 937 P.2d 1176 The Washington Supreme Court addressed this issue in Yousoufian V, 168 Wn.2d at 461-62. The court there concluded that th......
-
§2.2 Public Policy
...redacted). "Access is the underlying theme of the act." Am. Civil Liberties Union of Wash. v. Blaine Sch. Dist. No. 503 (ACLUI), 86 Wn.App. 688, 696, 937 P.2d 1176 (1997); see also Burt, 168 Wn.2d at 835 (purpose of PRA "is to protect the public's interest in being able to obtain public rec......