Supreme Court's sunshine ruling
The Utah Supreme Court earlier this year issued a ruling that open records advocates ought to spend some time studying -- it's a great opinion.
In Deseret News v. Salt Lake County, the justices unanimously found that an investigation report into alleged sexual harrassment in the County Clerk's Office was a public record.
One of the best aspects of the ruling was the court's finding that it is not enough for a government agency simply to classify a whole category of records as protected. The agency needs to look at the specific record sought and determine whether it meets the rather stringent standard of being a "clearly uwarranted invasion of personal privacy."
"To qualify for nonpublic classification a record must not only invade personal privacy, it must do so in a 'clearly unwarranted' manner," says the ruling written by Justice Ronald Nehring.
"The content of an investigative report of a sexual harassment allegation could by its nature be expected to invade privacy. It is also possible that considerations of public interest might push aside concerns over even the most intimate, embarrassing, and humiliating episodes of human sexual behavior."
Indeed, the justices found that such public interest existed in this case because the report communicated "a genuine question about the propriety of the manner in which Salt Lake County officials monitored their workplace and responded to evidence of sexual misconduct."
".... We believe that the public interest in governmental accountability will often prevail over the interest of insulating an official from unwanted intrusion into sexually related conduct."
The justices also made an important finding in a footnote in the case dealing with the conflict in GRAMA over weighing public interests of disclosure vs. private interests of protection.
While one part of GRAMA says courts may order disclosure when the public access interest "outweighs the interest favoring restriction," the justices said GRAMA's statement of legislative intent holds sway. That means disclosure is required when competing interests are of "equal weight."
-- dh
In Deseret News v. Salt Lake County, the justices unanimously found that an investigation report into alleged sexual harrassment in the County Clerk's Office was a public record.
One of the best aspects of the ruling was the court's finding that it is not enough for a government agency simply to classify a whole category of records as protected. The agency needs to look at the specific record sought and determine whether it meets the rather stringent standard of being a "clearly uwarranted invasion of personal privacy."
"To qualify for nonpublic classification a record must not only invade personal privacy, it must do so in a 'clearly unwarranted' manner," says the ruling written by Justice Ronald Nehring.
"The content of an investigative report of a sexual harassment allegation could by its nature be expected to invade privacy. It is also possible that considerations of public interest might push aside concerns over even the most intimate, embarrassing, and humiliating episodes of human sexual behavior."
Indeed, the justices found that such public interest existed in this case because the report communicated "a genuine question about the propriety of the manner in which Salt Lake County officials monitored their workplace and responded to evidence of sexual misconduct."
".... We believe that the public interest in governmental accountability will often prevail over the interest of insulating an official from unwanted intrusion into sexually related conduct."
The justices also made an important finding in a footnote in the case dealing with the conflict in GRAMA over weighing public interests of disclosure vs. private interests of protection.
While one part of GRAMA says courts may order disclosure when the public access interest "outweighs the interest favoring restriction," the justices said GRAMA's statement of legislative intent holds sway. That means disclosure is required when competing interests are of "equal weight."
-- dh
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home