Today, the Supreme Court holds that the motion for reconsideration did toll the 30-day period for appealing to the superior court. Thus Skinner's appeal was timely filed. The Court further holds that Skinner's service on the city clerk, while not perfect, "was reasonably calculated to give notice to the Commission." The Court of Appeals is affirmed. The decision was unanimous, and Justice Owens wrote the opinion. (briefs and argument)

Burt, et al. v. Dept. of Corrections, et al., No. 80998-4. The Court splintered 4-1-4 today on a question of who is an indispensable party to an injunction filed against the release of public records. Both the ACLU and the Washington Coalition for Open Government filed amicus briefs with the Court.

Prisoner Allan Parmelee had filed a public records request for information about certain prison employees. The employees moved for an injunction against releasing the records, which was granted. Parmelee was not joined to the action and his subsequent motions to intervene and for reconsideration were denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

The Supreme Court reverses the lower courts. The lead opinion, written by Justice Charles Johnson and joined by Justices Chambers, Owens, and James Johnson, agrees with Parmelee that "[i]n essence ... the trial court proceedings were not adversarial in that no party represented his position as the records requester." Parmelee should have been joined as an indispensable party under CR 19. The case is remanded with instructions to join Parmelee and without an award of attorney fees.

Justice Sanders concurs separately, noting that the Parelee's status as a prisoner does not diminish his rights under the Public Records Act. "Although some might not view Mr. Parmelee as the poster child for rigorous enforcement of the Public Records Act," Justice Sanders writes, "we should not cut corners to allow bad facts to make bad law as well." Justice Alexander dissents, joined by the Chief and Justice Stephens and Justice Pro Tem. Elaine Houghton (Justice Fairhurst did not participate). (briefs and argument)

Skinner v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City of Medina, No. 82306-5 (briefs and argument). Whether the time limit for appealing a Commission’s decision ran from the initial appeal or the motion for reconsideration. Roger Skinner appealed his dismissal from the City of Medina police force to the Medina Civil Service Commission. The Commission upheld his dismissal, and denied his subsequent motion for reconsideration. Skinner filed an appeal in King County Superior Court, and the trial court dismissed, saying Skinner had failed file his appeal of the initial order within 30 days as required by law. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) reversed.

Burt, et al. v. Dept. of Corrections, et al., No. 80998-4 (briefs and argument). Whether a person requesting documents under the Public Records Act must participate in a proceeding that could result in an injunction that prevents an agency from releasing the requested documents.

In the morning session:

Bellevue School District v. E.S., No. 83024-0 (briefs). Whether a child has the right to be represented by counsel at an initial truancy hearing. A student in the Bellevue School District, “E.S.,” missed 73 of the first 100 days of school, and the District filed a truancy petition. E.S., who was not represented by counsel at the truancy hearing, was found truant. E.S.’s lawyer moved to dismiss because E.S. had not been represented at the truancy hearing.

The school district argues that E.S. had no right to appointed counsel because she couldn’t actually be sanctioned at the initial truancy hearing. King County Superior Court ruled for the school district, but on appeal the Court of Appeals (Div. 1) held that “[a] child’s interests in her liberty, privacy, and education are in jeopardy at an initial truancy hearing, and she is unable to protect these interests herself. Due process demands she be represented in the initial truancy hearing.”

Kelley v. Centennial Contractors, No. 82474-6 (briefs). Phillip and Monica Blackshear sued Centennial Contractors Enterprises for injuries caused when a steel beam was dropped on Phillip. After they won the suit, they filed a complaint for loss of consortium on behalf of their three children. The complaint stated that it would have been impractical to include their claims with their parents’ suit. George Kelly was appointed guardian ad litem for the children.

At trial, the children’s case was dismissed because the court said their claims should have been joined with their parents’ claims. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) reversed, holding that since the children did not yet have a guardian ad litem it would have been impossible to join them to the suit, and that it would have been impractical for them to bring their claims until the results of their father’s surgery were known. (For financial reasons, the parents’ suit was brought while the results of the surgery were still unknown.)

In the afternoon session:

Freeman v. Freeman, No. 82283-2 (briefs). What must be proved for a trial court to terminate a permanent protection order? Robin Freeman got a permanent protection order against Rob Freeman due to domestic violence. Rob, a member of the military, has since moved away. He lost a hand in Iraq, and this made it necessary to retrain and change careers within the military. However, he needed a security clearance and could not get one because of the permanent protection order.

Rob moved to terminate the protection order. The trial court denied the motion, finding that Robin is currently in reasonable fear of Rob. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Rob had not been in Washington or had contact with Robin since 1998, that he had violated neither the protection order nor any law, and that “due to time and distance, there is no evidence to support a current fear” of physical harm.

Skinner v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City of Medina, No. 82306-5 (briefs). Whether the time limit for appealing a Commission’s decision ran from the initial appeal or the motion for reconsideration. Roger Skinner appealed his dismissal from the City of Medina police force to the Medina Civil Service Commission (Commission). The Commission upheld his dismissal, and denied his subsequent motion for reconsideration. Skinner filed an appeal in King County Superior Court, and the trial court dismissed, saying Skinner had failed file his appeal of the initial order within 30 days as required by law. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) reversed, holding that Roger Skinner had appealed within 30 days of the court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration.