Washington Supremes say judicial records not public
From Sunshine Review
[edit] October 16, 2009
Contents |
OLYMPIA, Washington: On October 15, the Washington State Supreme Court released its decision in City of Federal Way v. Koenig.
In the 7-2 decision, the court holds that Washington's Public Disclosure Act does not apply to the state's judicial records. [1]
[edit] Text of the decision
The decision was written by Susan Owens. She writes:
"We previously considered this issue in Nast v. Michels, 107 Wn.2d 300, 730 P.2d 54 (1986) where we held that the PRA does not apply to court case files because the judiciary is not included in the PRA's definition of "agency." Id. at 305-06. We conclude that Nast continues to stand for the principle that the PRA does not apply to the judiciary and that the appellant has not demonstrated a compelling reason to overturn Nast. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, we will overturn precedent only if it is incorrect and harmful and appellant has failed to demonstrate either. Thus, this court affirms the trial court and holds that the PRA does not apply to the judiciary."
[edit] History of the Case
The case came about as the result of a public records request made by David Koenig of Federal Way. Koenig requested all records associated with the resignation of Federal Way Municipal Court Judge Colleen Hartl, including correspondence between Judge Hartl and Judge Michael Morgan the court's presiding judge. The court released a large ammount of documentation but refused to release the emailed correspondence of the two judges. Koenig appealed the decision and the Washington Supreme Court ruled in favor of the judges declaring that the judiciaries exemption,. which is based on a Nast v. Michels a 1986 decision of the Washington Supreme Court, applied to email correspondence between members of the judiciary. [2] Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justice Debra Stephens dissented from the majority opinion, arguing that the courts were a public body and that their records should therefor be open to public review. Toby Nixon, president of the Washington Coalition for Open Government, agreed with the dissenting justices stating, "The administrative records of any other agency are subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. That should be the case for courts as well." [3] Nixon went on to indicate that his organization would push for a legislatively enacted change in the Washington Public Records Act to eliminate the judiciaries exemption, based on the advice of Justice Pro Tem Kevin M. Korsmo. [2]
This public records request comes in on the heels of a number of other investigations concerning the city of Federal Way's municipal court. The court was recently investigated to determine if Judge Morgan's attitude and comments towards employees created a hostile working environment. The report, conducted by the city was recently released based on an open records request. Further, Judge Hartl's resignation came about as a result of an illicit affair she had with a public defender.
[edit] See also
- Washington transparency headlines
- Washington Public Records Act
- City of Federal Way v. Koenig
- Nast v. Michels
[edit] External Links
- The Olympian, "State Supreme Court: judiciary's documents are not public records"
- The News Tribune, "Judicial records ruled not public"
[edit] References
 | ||||
| Report It • | The Good • | The Bad | ||
- ↑ The Olympian, "State Supreme Court: judiciary's documents are not public records", October 15, 2009
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 The Olympian, "State Supreme Court: judiciary's documents are not public records"
- ↑ The News Tribune, "Judicial records ruled not public"
| |||||||
