Justice Sanders and the Public Records Act
In January, Justice Richard B. Sanders authored an opinion that provided trial courts guidelines for assessing the severity of penalties when public agencies violate the Public Records Act. Yousoufian v. Office of Sims, 200 P.3d 232 (2009).
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports today that Justice Sanders could benefit from the ruling in his own public records lawsuit. Experts are mixed on whether this is appropriate. Several law professors say Sanders should not have participated in the Yousoufian case. Sanders says the law applies equally to all people, even judges. Sanders also said the Supreme Court’s ethics expert told him in May 2006 it was not necessary to recuse himself from public records cases.
I’ll let other folks comment on the ethical implications, but it’s worth noting that Sanders has been a consistent advocate for open, transparent government, so it’s hard to say his opinion in Yousoufian was a departure motivated out of personal gain. For example:
- Hangartner v. City of Seattle, 151 Wash.2d 439 (2004). Supreme Court ruled that records requests can be overbroad, and attorney-client privilege applies to records requests. (Sanders dissented.)
- Yousoufian v. Office of Ron Sims, 152 Wash.2d 421 (2004). Supreme Court ruled trial courts must assess a per-day (but not per-record) penalty for each day a record is wrongfully withheld. (Sanders dissented, calling for per-record penalty.)
- Koenig v. City of Des Moines, 158 Wash.2d 173 (2006). Supreme Court ruled the father of a child victim of sexual assault was entitled to police department records related to victim's case. (Sanders wrote majority.)
- Soter v. Cowles Pub. Co., 162 Wash.2d 716 (2007) Supreme Court ruled a school district's investigation of a student death not subject to the Public Records Act (Sanders dissented.)
- Bellevue John Does 1-11 v. Bellevue School Dist. #405, 164 Wash.2d 199 (2008). Supreme Court ruled the names of teachers alleged to have committed sexual misconduct against students are not subject to disclosure. (Sanders dissented.)
UPDATE: Justice Sanders has responded to the P-I.
