Church of the Divine Earth v. City of Tacoma
| Decision Date | 14 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 53804-1-II,53804-1-II |
| Citation | 466 P.3d 789,13 Wash.App.2d 497 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The CHURCH OF THE DIVINE EARTH, Appellant, v. CITY OF TACOMA, Respondent. |
Carolyn A. Lake, Richard B. Sanders, Goodstein Law Group PLLC, 501 S G St., Tacoma, WA, for Appellant.
Margaret A. Elofson, City of Tacoma, 747 Market St. # 1120, Tacoma, WA, for Respondent.
Sydney Paige Phillips, Attorney at Law, Po Box 552, Olympia, WA, Eric Rolf Stahlfeld, Attorney at Law, 145 Sw 155th St. Ste. 101, Burien, WA, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Freedom Foundation.
Worswick, J. ¶1 The Church of Divine Earth (Church) filed a Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56 RCW, request with the City of Tacoma (City), seeking job performance evaluations for two City employees. The City responded, redacting some material and explaining those redactions in a privilege log. The Church filed this action, alleging that the City violated the PRA. The City filed a motion for summary judgment dismissal, which the trial court granted.
¶2 On appeal, the Church argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment dismissal because the City's redactions did not comply with the PRA's "personal information" exemption, and the City's explanations in the privilege log were insufficient.
¶3 We hold that the City properly redacted information in the performance evaluations and that the City provided adequate explanations in its privilege log. Thus, we affirm.
FACTS
¶4 Peter Huffman and Kurtis Kingsolver are employed by the City as department directors. Huffman leads the Department of Planning and Development Services, and Kingsolver leads the Department of Public Works. These men are two of several department directors for the City. The assistant city manager directly supervised Huffman and Kingsolver in their roles as department directors.
¶5 The Church submitted a PRA request to the City, seeking, among other documents, five years of performance evaluations for Huffman and Kingsolver. The City responded, providing the performance evaluations in partially redacted form.1
¶6 The performance evaluations in question vary slightly depending on the year and the position evaluated. The performance evaluations generally contain four sections: (1) basic employee information, (2) rating the employee's performance based on different categories and stating specific examples of the employee's work, (3) goal setting and analysis of progress on previous goals, and (4) comments, overall rating, and signatures. The performance evaluations begin by stating the City's mission and values and basic employee information including name, division, job title, supervisor conducting the evaluation, and review time period. The City did not redact this information.
¶7 The next section involves performance expectations. This section lists different categories for evaluating the employee, such as accountability and resourcefulness in problem solving. In each category, the employee's performance is rated, ranging from "Exceeds Expectations" to "Does Not Meet Expectations." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 3. The performance evaluation contains a column next to each category for "Specific Examples." CP at 3. The City redacted the ratings and specific examples but did not redact the evaluation categories.
¶8 The third section is the employee's goal development plan which provides spaces to list employee goals, how to achieve those goals, progress on those goals, and the approximate date those goals will be completed. The City redacted the employee's listed goals, steps toward achievement, progress, and dates, but did not redact the section headings. Finally, the performance evaluations provide sections for employee comments, supervisor comments, an overall rating on the employee's performance, and signatures of the employee and supervisor. The City redacted the comments and overall rating, but did not redact the headings or signatures.
¶9 The City included a privilege log that identified and gave reasons for the redactions. The privilege log stated:
CP at 298. Following the production of the partially redacted performance evaluations and accompanying privilege log, the City closed the Church's request.
¶10 The Church filed a complaint, alleging that the City wrongfully redacted the performance evaluations and that the City's brief explanation in its privilege log was inadequate. The Church moved for in camera review of the performance evaluations and for summary judgment regarding its claims.
¶11 The City opposed the Church's motion for summary judgment, but not the Church's motion for in camera review. Regarding its response to the Church's motion for summary judgment, the City attached the affidavit of Catherine Journey. Journey is the City's Training and Development Manager and oversees the performance evaluation process. She explained that the City's performance evaluation process occurs annually between the employee and their direct supervisor. The review process is the same for department directors. Journey stated, "The purpose of the process is to bring out the best performance in all of our employees so that we can provide excellent service to our community." CP at 376-77. The evaluation process allows employees to raise issues regarding their work or department and provides an opportunity for supervisors to "coach the employee on a wide variety of performance issues." CP at 377. Journey stated that the effectiveness of the performance evaluation process would be "seriously undermined" if the performance evaluations were subject to disclosure. CP at 377.
¶12 By letter opinion, the trial court stated that it reviewed the performance evaluations in camera and confirmed that no specific instances of misconduct were redacted. It concluded that the redactions made were not of public concern and disclosure would risk detrimental effects. It continued, "There is nothing further that Defendant City of Tacoma must do with respect to the substance of its privilege log, and all redactions reviewed in camera were appropriate." CP at 392. Following this, the City moved for summary judgment dismissal of the case. The trial court granted the City's motion.
¶13 The Church appeals the trial court order granting the City's motion for summary judgment dismissal. The Church petitioned the Supreme Court for direct review. The Supreme Court denied the Church's petition, and transferred the case to this court.
ANALYSIS
I. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT
¶14 The Church argues that the performance evaluations do not meet the requirements for the claimed PRA exemption and that the City violated the PRA by not providing adequate explanations in its privilege log.2 We disagree.
¶15 The PRA is a strongly worded mandate for broad disclosure of public records. Resident Action Council v. Seattle Hous. Auth. , 177 Wash.2d 417, 431, 327 P.3d 600 (2013). Its purpose is to increase governmental transparency and accountability by making public records accessible to Washington's citizens.
John Doe A v. Wash. State Patrol , 185 Wash.2d 363, 371, 374 P.3d 63 (2016). We liberally construe the PRA to promote the public interest. Soter v. Cowles Publ'g Co. , 162 Wash.2d 716, 731, 174 P.3d 60 (2007) ; RCW 42.56.030. When evaluating a PRA claim, we "take into account the policy of this chapter that free and open examination of public records is in the public interest, even though such examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment to public officials or others." RCW 42.56.550(3). We review agency actions under the PRA de novo. John Doe A , 185 Wash.2d at 370-71, 374 P.3d 63 ; RCW 42.56.550(3).
¶16 We review a trial court's order granting summary judgment de novo.
Greenhalgh v. Dep't of Corr. , 160 Wash. App. 706, 714, 248 P.3d 150 (2011). Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c).
¶17 The Church argues that Huffman's and Kingsolver's performance evaluations do not meet the requirements for the claimed PRA exemption. Following our in camera review of the performance evaluations, we disagree.
¶18 A government agency must disclose public records upon request unless a specific exemption in the PRA applies. RCW 42.56.070(1) ; Ameriquest Mortg. Co. v. Office of the Att'y Gen. , 177 Wash.2d 467, 485-86, 300 P.3d 799 (2013). The agency claiming the exemption bears the burden of proving that the withheld records are within the scope of the exemption. Resident Action Council , 177 Wash.2d at 428, 327 P.3d 600. We narrowly construe PRA exemptions. RCW 42.56.030.
¶19 Performance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Energy Policy Advocates v. Office of Attorney Gen.
...an in camera review of the disputed documents. RCW 42.56.550(3); see Church of the Divine Earth v. City of Tacoma, 13 Wn.App. 2d 497, 505, 466 P.3d 789, review denied, 196 Wn.2d 1025 (2020) (conducting in camera review on appeal). After reviewing the unredacted documents in detail, we agree......