Gwich'in Steering Committee v. Office of the Governor was a case before the Alaska Supreme Court in 2000 concerning the deliberative process exemption based on Alaska Public Records Act statute 09.23.120(a)(4).
[edit] Important precedents
This case merely affirmed the established procedures for examining deliberative process disputes and strengthened the deliberative process exemption within the office of the governor.
[edit] Background
- The Governor of Alaska has been actively involved in lobbying Washington to open the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). including hiring a lobbying company, The Wexler Group, to represent their interest in Washington.
- The Gwich'in Steering Committee is a non-profit whose goal is to protect the ANWR refuge from oil drilling.
- In November 1997 the Gwich'in Steering Committee submitted a broad open records request, requesting any information about lobbying at Washington.
- The government finally produced most of the documentation requested but withheld eight documents based on the deliberative process exception established by Doe v. Superior Court and statute 09.23.120(a)(4).
- The Gwich'in Steering Committee filed suit and the government released one of the remaining eight documents but withheld the rest
[edit] Ruling of the court
The district court ruled in favor of the Office of the Governor and declared that all the remaining documents fell under the deliberative process agreement. Both sides, however, appealed this ruling.
The Supreme court began this decision by examining the purpose of the deliberative process exemption. The Supreme Court, contrary to the argument of the Gwich'in Steering Committee, declared that the exemption was not affected by the separation of powers or limited to the duties assigned to the governor within the Alaskan Constitution. The court instead determined that the exemption was designed to protect the give and take of any deliberation. The court also determined that all of the documents held by the offie of the governor met the two criteria of an deliberative process document, namely:
1.) That the materials be predecisional
2.) That the materials represent the deliberative process and include a give and take of opinions and recommendations
Finally the court held that the public interest in disclosure does not outweigh the importance of non-disclosure for governmental policies and future deliberative processes. Thus, the court ruled in favor of the governor, maintaining the secrecy of the documents.
[edit] Associated cases
[edit] See Also
[edit] External links
[edit] References
