Resident Action Council v. Seattle Hous. Auth.

• Decision Date: 10 January 2014
• Docket Number: No. 87656–8.,87656–8.
• Citation: 327 P.3d 600
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: RESIDENT ACTION COUNCIL, Respondent, v. SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellant.

327 P.3d 600

RESIDENT ACTION COUNCIL, Respondent,

v.SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellant.

No. 87656–8.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Argued Oct. 18, 2012.

Decided May 9, 2013.

As Amended on Denial of Reconsideration Jan. 10, 2014.

Kenneth Wendell Masters, Shelby R. Frost Lemmel, Masters Law Group PLLC, Bainbridge Island, WA, for Appellant.

Meredith E. Childers, Eric Dunn, NW Justice Project, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

Aviva Kamm, Stokes Lawrence PS, Seattle, WA, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Coalition for Open Go.

Nicholas Broten Straley, Columbia Legal Services, Seattle, WA, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Columbia Legal Services.

GONZÁLEZ, J.

¶ 1 This direct appeal concerns the public disclosure of Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) grievance hearing decisions pursuant to the Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56 RCW. SHA hearing decisions contain welfare recipients' personal information. This information is exempt from disclosure under the PRA, but the PRA requires redaction and disclosure of public records insofar as all exempt material can be removed. Accordingly, the PRA requires redaction of welfare recipients' exempt information contained in SHA's grievance hearing decisions. Applicable federal regulations do not exempt the hearing decisions from disclosure, nor do applicable federal regulations preempt the PRA. Thus, the trial court properly ordered SHA to produce the grievance hearing decisions pursuant to the redaction requirement of the PRA, properly ordered SHA to produce the responsive records in electronic format and to establish necessary policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the PRA, and properly awarded statutory damages. We affirm the trial court and award respondent Resident Action Council (RAC) its attorney fees on appeal.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2 SHA is a local housing authority that provides federally subsidized public housing in Seattle. Disputes between individual tenants and SHA are resolved through a grievance hearing process resulting in a written decision from a hearing officer. Pursuant to applicable federal regulations, an unredacted copy of each decision is placed in the tenant's file at SHA and a separate redacted copy is placed in a central file. See24 C.F.R. § 966.57(a). RAC is a group of SHA tenant leaders seeking copies of all SHA grievance hearing decisions dated June 17, 2007, or later. On June 17, 2010, RAC made a request under the PRA for copies of all such hearing decisions and also requested that such copies be provided in electronic format to minimize reproduction costs.

¶ 3 SHA produced redacted hard copies of the hearing decisions without explanation or comment. RAC then complained that SHA had failed to explain its redactions, that the hearing decisions were inconsistently redacted and some of the decisions had been overly redacted, that SHA had included numerous duplicates and nonresponsive documents (and was seeking compensation for production of those documents), and that the documents had been delivered in hard copy with a “messenger fee” rather than in electronic format as requested. SHA failed to respond.

¶ 4 RAC then sought relief in superior court under the PRA, seeking costs, fees, and statutory damages, and an injunction requiring SHA to produce copies of the hearing decisions (without any unauthorized redactions and in electronic format). RAC also sought an injunction ordering SHA to establish (1) published procedures for requesting documents, (2) a published list of relevant PRA exemptions, (3) a policy for redacting grievance hearing decisions, (4) a policy for providing explanations for withholding or redacting documents, and (5) a policy of providing records in electronic format when requested. SHA argued in part that the unredacted hearing decisions are not subject to the disclosure or redaction requirements of the PRA and that it already disclosed the redacted decisions in full.

¶ 5 The trial court granted RAC the relief it requested. The trial court first ordered SHA to produce “all grievance hearing decisions subject to RAC's request” with “[o]nly names and identifying information of SHA tenants ... redacted,” with a code or marks to distinguish among redacted items, and in electronic format. Clerk's Papers at 171. In a subsequent order, the trial court also directed SHA to pay statutory damages at a rate of $25 per day, to publish procedures for requesting records, to publish a list of relevant exemptions, to establish a policy for redacting grievance hearing decisions, to establish a policy for providing written explanations whenever withholding records under the PRA, and to provide electronic records when requested.

¶ 6 SHA appealed and the case was certified and transferred to this court. SHA argues (1) that the unredacted hearing decisions within individual tenant files are exempt from disclosure under the PRA and thus, that the only relevant documents subject to disclosure were produced without (additional) redaction; (2) that it has no obligation to produce documents in electronic format; (3) that it has no duty to explain redactions that are made pursuant to federal regulations; (4) that it has wide discretion in determining how to redact documents under said federal regulations; and (5) that it has no duty to publish procedures for redactions conducted pursuant to federal regulations. RAC disagrees and seeks fees on appeal pursuant to RCW 42.56.550(4). See Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. Univ. of Wash., 125 Wash.2d 243, 271, 884 P.2d 592 (1994) ( PAWS II).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 7 Agency action taken or challenged under the PRA is reviewed de novo. RCW 42.56.550(3); PAWS II, 125 Wash.2d at 252, 884 P.2d 592. The burden is on the agency to establish that an exemption to production applies under the PRA. RCW 42.56.550(1). A trial court's decision to grant an injunction and its decision regarding the terms of the injunction are reviewed for abuse of discretion.Kucera v. Dep't of Transp., 140 Wash.2d 200, 209, 995 P.2d 63 (2000).

III. ANALYSIS

¶ 8 Under the broad provisions of the PRA, SHA's unredacted hearing decisions must be redacted and produced. SHA operates as a local agency in cooperation with the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Although SHA is subject to limited federal regulations, SHA also remains subject to state laws such as the PRA. The PRA promotes open government by requiring disclosure of public records upon request. The PRA applies to SHA's unredacted grievance decisions, and thus the trial court properly ordered SHA to redact and produce those documents. The trial court also acted within its discretion when it ordered electronic production and when it required SHA to establish necessary policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the PRA. The trial court also properly awarded statutory damages.

A. Legal Background1. Local Housing Authorities and Cooperative Federalism

¶ 9 SHA is a local housing authority that operates within an established framework of federal and state cooperation. The United States Housing Act of 1937 allows for federal assistance to local housing authorities while maintaining and promoting state and local control. See42 U.S.C. § 1437f(b)(1) (authorizing “annual contributions contracts” with local housing authorities); 42 U.S.C. § 1437(a)(1)(C) (establishing policy of “vest[ing] in public housing agencies that perform well[ ] the maximum amount of responsibility and flexibility in program administration”). This sort of framework, “in which state agencies are given broad responsibility and latitude in administering welfare assistance programs,” has been described as a form of “cooperative federalism.” Turner v. Perales, 869 F.2d 140, 141 (2d Cir.1989); see also King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 316–17, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 20 L.Ed.2d 1118 (1968); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 645, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969) (Warren, C.J., dissenting) (“Federal entry into the welfare area can ... be best described as a major experiment in ‘cooperative federalism,’ combining state and federal participation to solve the problems of the depression.” (citation omitted)), overruled on unrelated grounds in Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 671, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). The Washington State Legislature authorized the creation of local housing authorities such as SHA, seeRCW 35.82.040, and also has authorized such local housing authorities to “do any and all things necessary or desirable to secure the financial aid or cooperation of the federal government,” RCW 35.82.200(1). Accordingly, SHA has coordinated with HUD to receive federal assistance and is now subject to certain federal regulations. See, e.g., Lankford v. Sherman, 451 F.3d 496, 510 (8th Cir.2006) (noting that in “a system of cooperative federalism ... once the state voluntarily accepts the conditions imposed by Congress, the Supremacy Clause obliges it to comply with federal requirements”).

¶ 10 SHA's dispute resolution process must comply with relevant federal regulations. Specifically, disputes between individual tenants and SHA must be resolved through a grievance hearing process established pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(k) and 24 C.F.R. § 966. Under 24 C.F.R. § 966.57, the secretary of HUD has required public housing authorities (PHAs) such as SHA to ensure that disputes are resolved by hearing officers who must provide written decisions. The federal regulations also require PHAs to ensure that one copy of each written decision is “retain[ed] ... in the tenant's folder” and another copy “with all names and identifying references deleted” is on file and “made available for inspection by a prospective complainant, his representative, or the hearing panel or hearing officer.” 24 C.F.R. § 966.57(a). A “complainant” is defined as “any tenant whose grievance is presented to the PHA,” and a “grievance” is defined as “any dispute which a tenant may have ... [u...