Tacoma Public Library v. Woessner
| Decision Date | 20 February 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 20145-3-II,20145-3-II |
| Parties | TACOMA PUBLIC LIBRARY, a municipal corporation, Respondent, v. Carolyn WOESSNER, individually, Defendant, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
William Edward Holt, Gordon Thomas Honeywell Et al., Tacoma, for Amicus Curiae.
Jeffrey Allen James, Tamsen L. Leachman, Sebris Busto P.s., Bellevue, for Respondent.
Carolyn Woessner sought copies of two personnel reports from Tacoma Public Library (the Library) under Washington's public disclosure act, RCW 42.17. The reports contain the names and identification numbers of Library employees, as well as salary, sick and vacation leave hours, and a summary of benefits. The Library provided Woessner with redacted reports, from which employee names and numbers were deleted. Woessner again requested unredacted reports. The Library denied the request, asserting that the reports were exempt from disclosure because they contained private employee information. The Library then filed a motion requesting determination of its disclosure obligations under the act. The trial court ruled that the unredacted reports were exempt.
Carolyn Woessner is an employee of the Tacoma Public Library and the union representative for her fellow non-management Library employees. In February 1995, Woessner, in her individual capacity, asked the Library to disclose certain records under Washington's public disclosure act (PDA), RCW 42.17. The requested records contain information on employees' rates of pay and amounts of regular, vacation and leave hours, benefits, and employer contributions to employee pensions. 2 The information is organized by employee name and identification number. Woessner contends that this information is necessary to regulate government spending, to ensure equitable distribution of pay and benefits between management and labor, and to monitor overpayments and nepotism.
Once the requested reports were available, the Library provided them to Woessner with employee names and numbers deleted, or "redacted." In July 1995, Woessner, in her union capacity, again requested the reports with the employee names and numbers included.
In response to Woessner's request, the Library conducted a survey of its employees, asking if they would find such disclosure offensive. The majority of employees responding to the survey indicated they did not want the information disclosed. Based on this response and the Library's belief that the names and numbers were exempt from disclosure, the Library did not provide Woessner with unredacted reports. The Library then informed Woessner and the In September 1995, Woessner informed the Library that she intended to pursue her request for the unredacted reports, although she was able to obtain identical unredacted reports through the City of Tacoma. 3
union that if they did not withdraw their requests, it would seek declaratory judgment for a determination of its obligations to provide the redacted information.
On September 13, 1995, the Library filed a complaint for declaratory judgment pursuant to RCW 7.24, 4 seeking an order to protect the records under RCW 42.17.330 5 and arguing that the redacted information is exempt from disclosure under the "personal information" exception to the PDA, RCW 42.17.310(1)(b). The claim was initially filed against the union and Woessner, in both her individual and her union capacities. The union withdrew its request for the reports and was removed from the proceedings. The claim was also dismissed against Woessner in her capacity as union representative. Thus, the case proceeded against only Woessner in her individual capacity.
The trial court heard oral argument and considered affidavits and other documentary evidence submitted by the parties. The court determined that the Library employees had a substantial privacy interest in the information contained in the unredacted reports, and that Library operations could be adversely affected by disclosure. The court determined that the unredacted reports were exempt
from disclosure and granted the Library's motion for an order of protection against disclosure.
The PDA reflects the belief that the public should have full access to information concerning the working of the government. Amren v. City of Kalama, 131 Wn.2d 25, 31, 929 P.2d 389 (1997). The purpose of the PDA is to ensure the sovereignty of the people and the accountability of the governmental agencies that serve them. RCW 41.17.251.
... [T]he PDA is a "strongly worded mandate for broad disclosure of public records." Amren, 131 Wn.2d at 31 ... (quoting Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. University of Washington, 125 Wn.2d 243, 251, 884 P.2d 592 (1994)); Spokane Police Guild v. [Washington ] Liquor Control Bd., 112 Wn.2d 30, 33, 769 P.2d 283 (1989).... The PDA is to be liberally construed to promote full access to public records, and its exemptions are to be narrowly construed. Amren, 131 Wn.2d at 31 ...; [PAWS ], 125 Wn.2d at 251 ...; RCW 41.17.251.
Newman, 133 Wash.2d at 570-71, 947 P.2d 712 (footnote omitted). "[F]ree and open examination of public records is in the public interest...." RCW 42.17.340(3).
The public records portion of the PDA, RCW 42.17.250-.348, requires all state and local agencies to disclose any public record upon request, unless the record falls within certain specific exemptions. RCW 42.17.260(1). 6 The agency bears the burden of proving that its refusal to RCW 42.17.310(1) provides the following pertinent personal and other exemptions:
disclose "is in accordance with a statute that exempts or prohibits disclosure in whole or in part of specific information or records." RCW 42.17.340(1); Dawson v. Daly, 120 Wash.2d 782, 789, 845 P.2d 995 (1993). Further, agencies "shall not distinguish among persons requesting records ..." nor require "such persons ... to provide information as to the purpose for the request...." RCW 42.17.270
(b) Personal information in files maintained for employees, appointees, or elected officials of any public agency to the extent that disclosure would violate their right to privacy.
....
(d) Specific intelligence information and specific investigative records compiled by investigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies, and state agencies vested with the responsibility to discipline members of any profession, the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any person's right to privacy.
....
(l ) Any library record, the primary purpose of which is to maintain control of library materials, or to gain access to information, which discloses or could be used to disclose the identity of a library user.
....
(t) All applications for public employment, including the names of applicants, resumes, and other related materials submitted with respect to an applicant.
(u) The residential addresses and residential telephone numbers of employees or volunteers of a public agency which are held by the agency in personnel records, employment or volunteer rosters, or mailing lists of employees or volunteers.
....
(dd) Information that identifies a person who, while an agency employee: (i) Seeks advice, under an informal process (ee) Investigative records compiled by an employing agency conducting a current investigation of a possible unfair practice under chapter 49.60 RCW or of a possible violation of other federal, state, or local laws prohibiting discrimination in employment
established by the employing agency, in order to ascertain his or her rights in connection with a possible unfair practice under chapter 49.60 RCW against the person; and (ii) requests his or her identity or any identifying information not be disclosed.
....
(ii) Personal information in files maintained in a data base created under RCW 43.07.360.
Nonetheless, subsection (2) provides: "[T]he exemptions of this section are inapplicable to the extent that information, the disclosure of which would violate personal privacy or vital governmental interests, can be deleted from the specific records sought." RCW 42.17.310(2).
The Library first argues that because Woessner was able to obtain the same unredacted reports from another source before filing this appeal, the issue is moot. 7 But, whether the reports are available from another source does not affect our analysis under the PDA.
In Limstrom v. Ladenburg, 85 Wash.App. 524, 933 P.2d 1055, review granted, 133 Wash.2d 1001, 943 P.2d 662 (1997), the Pierce County Prosecutor's Office denied a request for records in part "because these documents would be available at less cost to the state through the clerk's office or other agencies...." Limstrom, 85 Wash.App. at 532, 933 P.2d 1055. We determined that:
[t]here is no reasonableness requirement in the public Limstrom, 85 Wash.App. at 532, 933 P.2d 1055 (quoting PAWS, 125 Wash.2d at 258, 884 P.2d 592). Similarly, the PDA does not exempt records that a requester has already received from another source. See also Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wash.2d 123, 132, 580 P.2d 246 (1978) (). Accordingly, Woessner's claim is not moot. 8
disclosure act. The only exemptions to the disclosure requirement are those specifically included in the statute, and "the Public Records Act contains no general exemptions." ... Therefore, the disclosure request could not be denied based only on the fact that they are available through other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
International Federation v. Superior Court
...disclosure of salary information for employees of institutions of higher education is not unconstitutional); Tacoma Public Library v. Woessner (1998) 90 Wash.App. 205, 951 P.2d 357 (records of employee names, salaries, benefits, and vacation and sick leave pay not exempt from disclosure); b......
-
Limstrom v. Ladenburg, 65351-8
...affidavits and memoranda of law, our review is de novo. Dawson, 120 Wash.2d at 788, 845 P.2d 995; Tacoma Pub. Library v. Woessner, 90 Wash.App. 205, 215, 951 P.2d 357 (1998). However, because the documents requested were not viewed by the trial court, and are not included in the record, we ......
-
Wash. Pub. Emps. Ass'n v. Wash. State Ctr. for Childhood Deafness & Hearing
Loss
...personnel information containing unique employee identification numbers could be highly offensive. See Tacoma Pub. Library v. Woessner, 90 Wash. App. 205, 222-23, 951 P.2d 357 (1998) ("release of employee names, salaries, publicly funded fringe benefits, and vacation and sick leave pay is n......
-
SEIU Healthcare 775NW v. State
... ... 384 1 The Freedom Foundation (the Foundation) submitted a Public Records Act (PRA) 1 request to the Department of Social and Health ... 15 SEIU also relies on Tacoma Pub. Library v. Woessner, where this court ruled that release of employee ... ...
-
§16.3 Procedural Aspects of Requestor-Initiated Actions
...case is not moot solely because a requestor can obtain the records from another source. See Tacoma Pub. Library v. Woessner (Woessner I), 90 Wn.App. 205, 214, 951 P.2d 357 (1998), amended, 972 P.2d 932 (1999). Another exception to the mootness doctrine is when a case presents an important i......
-
Table of Cases
...(1989), review denied, 113 Wn.2d 1037 (1990): 4.1(1), 8.3(2)(b)(iii), 9.1(1), 9.1(3), 9.2(2), 16.3(8) Tacoma Pub. Library v. Woessner, 90 Wn.App. 205, 951 P.2d 357, review granted and remanded, 136 Wn.2d 1030 (1998), and amended on remand, 972 P.2d 932 (1999): 8.3(1)(d), 10.2(3), 10.2(3)(a)......
-
§18.4 Attorney Fees
...aspect of this subsection. Amren, 131 Wn.2d at 35; ACLU I, 86 Wn.App. at 699. In Tacoma Public Library v. Woessner (Woessner I), 90 Wn.App. 205, 951 P.2d 357, amended, 972 P.2d 932 (1998), the Court of Appeals initially adopted a different interpretation. In Woessner I, the Court of Appeals......
-
§10.2 Relevant Exemptions
...from a file labeled as a "personnel" file for personal information to fall under RCW 42.56.230(3). See Tacoma Pub. Library v. Woessner, 90 Wn.App. 205, 216-17, 951 P.2d 357, review granted and remanded, 136 Wn.2d 1030 (1998), and amended on remand, 972 P.2d 932 (1999) (agency-wide report on......