Vance v. OFFICES OF THURSTON COUNTY COM'RS

• Decision Date: 24 June 2003
• Docket Number: No. 28680-7-II.,28680-7-II.
• Parties: Kelly VANCE, Appellant, v. The OFFICES OF THURSTON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, et al., Respondents. Scott Wood; Kelly Vance; and Kurt Weinrich, Appellants, v. Thurston County; Thurston County Board Of County Commissioners, Respondents.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

71 P.3d 680

117 Wn. App. 660

117 Wash. App. 660

Kelly VANCE, Appellant, v. The OFFICES OF THURSTON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, et al., Respondents.

Scott Wood; Kelly Vance; and Kurt Weinrich, Appellants, v. Thurston County; Thurston County Board Of County Commissioners, Respondents.

No. 28680-7-II.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2.

June 24, 2003.

Reconsideration Denied August 6, 2003.

Katrina Eve Glogowski, McCarthy & Holthus LLP, Seattle, WA, for Appellant.

Jeffrey George Fancher, Attorney at Law, Thurston Co. Pros. Atty., Olympia, WA, for Respondents.

ARMSTRONG, J.

Kelly Vance and others¹ filed numerous public disclosure requests with various Thurston County agencies under Washington's Public Disclosure Act. A county employee responded to the requests for the county commissioners and another county agency, but mistakenly left out one document. After the trial court ruled against Vance in a show cause hearing, he filed two more requests, claiming that Thurston County failed to respond to the original requests. The trial court disagreed and denied Vance's Motion for Relief From Order. On appeal, Vance argues that the trial court erred in failing to strictly enforce the Public Disclosure Act and in not finding the County liable for failing to timely comply with the requests and in failing to produce all documents requested. We find no error and, accordingly, affirm.

FACTS

Between June and August 1999, Kelly Vance submitted 14 separate requests under Washington's Public Disclosure Act (PDA), codified chapter 42.17 RCW, to various Thurston County agencies. Vance and his colleagues filed additional public disclosure requests individually as well. Most of the requests were several pages long and cited numerous legal cases and laws. Vance made nine requests to Thurston County Development Services (Development Services).² He made five more requests to the Thurston County Board of Commissioners (BOCC).³

The current case involves request PD-TCC-01, which vance submitted to the BOCC on June 6, 1999. Vance made identical requests to Development Services and the Thurston Regional Planning Council on the same date. The requests sought records pertaining to general policies and procedures regarding agency operations, organization, procedures, policies, appointments, opinions, interpretations, instructions, reports, correspondence, or changes and amendments to general operations. Vance also asked the County to produce a current index identifying information on records issued, adopted, or promulgated after January 1, 1973, as required under RCW 42.17.260(3), or to produce an order showing that compiling such as an index was unduly burdensome.

The County designated Gina Suomi to coordinate responses to the multiple requests. Suomi is the Administrative Supervisor for Development Services, an office under the control and authority of the BOCC. Her duties include responding to public records requests for Development Services and, at times, the BOCC. The BOCC directed Suomi to respond for both the BOCC and Development Services because: (1) Development Services is under the authority and control of the BOCC; (2) the two requests were identical; and (3) Suomi is generally responsible for coordinating responses for Development Services and, at times, the BOCC.

Because of the confusing nature of the three lengthy public information requests, Suomi responded on June 11, 1999, by advising Vance that she would need approximately 30 days to address the requests. The Thurston Regional Planning Council decided to respond on its own.

Suomi met with BOCC administrative aide, Del Rae Oderman, to determine which records were available. On June 22, Suomi provided documents in response to Vance's June 6 request. Although the documents were sent on Development Services letterhead, the response referred to PD-TCC-01.⁴ And Suomi expressly referred Vance to, among other things, the Commissioner's Administrative Manual and Thurston County Zoning Ordinance (Title 20 of the Thurston County Code). She also stated that they were not aware of a current records index or an order that maintaining such an index was unduly burdensome.

Suomi did overlook one document that could have been responsive to Vance's request. The document, however, was on public display and was ultimately given to Vance on July 23, 1999, in response to his request number PD-TCC-02.

Vance sued the County over its response to PD-TCC-01 on the same day that Suomi responded to PD-TCC-02. The Thurston County Superior Court ordered the County to show cause why it had unlawfully withheld documents. After a hearing, the trial judge ruled that the County had not violated the PDA by unlawfully withholding public documents.

On February 21, 2002, after the court had ruled against Vance in the show cause hearing, he made two additional public information requests in person. He sought the: (1) policy and procedures Development Services relied on; (2) "County Permitting Policies and Procedures" manual; and (3) "Policies and Procedures Book 2, Plan Review-Zoning" manual. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 226. Vance also requested a copy of the BOCC's Administrative Manual. The BOCC and Development Services responded to Vance's February 21 request on February 27, 2002.

Based on the County's response to his February 21, 2002 public disclosure request, Vance filed a Motion for Relief From Order. The court denied Vance's motion and dismissed his action against the County.

ANALYSIS

We review de novo a public agency's response to a PDA request. Tacoma Pub. Library v. Woessner, 90 Wash.App. 205, 215, 951 P.2d 357 (1998). The PDA is to be liberally construed to promote full access to public records, and its exemptions are to be narrowly construed. Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. Univ. of Washington, 125 Wash.2d 243, 251, 884 P.2d 592 (1994).

I. The Legal Standard

"[F]ree 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 42.17.340(3) (1998); King County v. Sheehan, 114 Wash.App. 325, 336, 57 P.3d 307 (2002). A public agency must respond to a records request within five business days. RCW 42.17.320 (1998).⁵ The agency bears the burden of proving that refusal to 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) (1998); Sheehan, 114 Wash.App. at 336,57 P.3d 307.

Vance argues that the trial court erred in finding the County's substantial compliance sufficient to meet PDA standards. Specifically, he argues that Suomi's June 22 response was only on behalf of Development Services, not the BOCC. Vance reasons that Development Services is a separate agency and can not respond for the BOCC. He urges us to strictly construe the statute and find that the County violated the PDA because, according to Vance, the BOCC never responded to PD-TCC-001. Vance also argues that the County violated the PDA when Suomi produced the July 23, 1999 document only in response to his lawsuit.

But the County did respond to PD-TCC-001. Suomi expressly referred to PD-TCC-001 in her June 22, 1999 response to Vance. Suomi's response stated "RE: Records request PD-TCC-01" in the salutation. CP at 91. We conclude that the trial court correctly ruled that Vance had not shown that the County refused to allow inspection of this document.

II. Suomi—Authority to Respond on Behalf of the County

Under RCW 42.17.250(1)(a), an agency must place, "[d]escriptions of its central and field organization and the established places at which, the employees from whom, and the methods whereby, the public may obtain information, make submittals or requests, or obtain copies of agency decisions." RCW 42.17.250(1)(a) (1998). This provision is part of a strongly worded mandate for broad public disclosure of public records. Limstrom v. Ladenburg, 136 Wash.2d 595, 603, 963 P.2d 869 (1998).

Vance argues that RCW 42.17.250(1)(a) requires all public agencies to designate a particular employee to handle all public information requests and that an employee of one agency cannot respond for another agency. He argues that the County violated RCW 42.17.250(1)(a) when Suomi responded for both Development Services and the BOCC.

RCW 42.17.250(1)(a) expressly requires an agency to provide, "the employees from whom ... the public may obtain information." RCW 42.17.250(1)(a) (1998) (emphasis added). The statute expressly allows more than one employee to address public information requests and responses; and it does not require that the employee work for the agency. The BOCC fulfilled the statutory requirement by providing a procedural form that advised the public to make records requests to the second floor receptionist in Building 1, Room 269. The receptionist would then ascertain the appropriate staff member to fulfill the request. The statute does not require each agency within a governmental entity, such as the County, to designate its own separate individual, and Vance cites no authority to support the notion.

Moreover, Vance's interpretation of the PDA would likely hinder the purposes of the Act. If each agency within a governmental entity were required to designate its own staff person to respond to PDA requests, the staff persons in smaller agencies would lack the training and experience to deal efficiently with requests. And the County would be unable to train and use a multi-agency specialist, such as Suomi, to handle requests more efficiently and cost effectively. As a result, some agencies would require more time and incur greater expense to produce the requested documents. This runs counter to the spirit and purpose of the PDA; we are not obligated to undertake a hypertechnical reading of a statute that yields an absurd result. Pudmaroff v. Allen, 138 Wash.2d 55, 65, 977 P.2d 574 (1999).

A. Did the County Withhold Records...