Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
No, the Court did not issue an order. A judge who belonged to the court did. Judges are elected officials, any reporter who says a judge does something without naming the Judge isn't doing their job.
On the other hand, it really does seem like the guy behind whosigned.org is making a good faith effort to start conversation about something of timely importance to the citizens of Washington...We'll see how this all turns out.
So now we have this to deal with, and we have to fuck around spending court dollars and time wrangling over it. I think Dan was right before (which is odd enough already) -- if this is an "official" city group that uses city resources in any sort of meaningful way, the request needs to be respected as a FOIA request. If, as this guy Coffman is claiming (shockingly), there is NO city involvement, then it should be pretty open and shut.
Regardless, I doubt this would have come up if not for the Australian running the R-71 program telling us all how US Representative Democracy is supposed to work.
Irvin is right. This is RANK hypocrisy at its finest.
Enjoy.
then again, I'm sympathetic to the cause, so maybe I'm just being naive.
This is not a consequence of whosigned.org, this was lodged as a complaint numerous times for several years now. Their names are not public information, only the support network, such as leaders, outside support and any official complicit in the gifting of public funds, should that be an issue.
People are free to join organizations such as these, whether they are employees or elected officials (there are dozens of orgs for financial staff, administrative staff, etc.). The roster and membership isn't public information, only the names of those complicit in the gifting or misappropriation of public funds, but there has been no proof or potential discovery of such proof.
Thanks for that perspective...
Statutory Provisions: The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created. This chapter shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy. RCW 42.56.030.
Courts shall take into account the policy of this chapter that free and open examination of public records is in the public interest, even though such examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment to public officials or others. RCW 42.56.550(3).
In any “gray areas,” a court will look to the requirement to interpret the Act in favor of disclosure and will decide a dispute in favor of open government.
1.2 What Is A “Public Record”
The PRA adopts the definitions in chapter 42.17 RCW, the older version of the PRA. RCW 42.56.010.
Statutory Provisions: "Public record" includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. For the office of the secretary of the senate and the office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives, public records means legislative records as defined in RCW 40.14.100 and also means the following: All budget and financial records; personnel leave, travel, and payroll records; records of legislative sessions; reports submitted to the legislature; and any other record designated a public record by any official action of the senate or the house of representatives. RCW 42.17.020(41).
"Writing" means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, and every other means of recording any form of communication or representation, including, but not limited to, letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination thereof, and all papers, maps, magnetic or paper tapes, photographic films and prints, motion picture, film and video recordings, magnetic or punched cards, discs, drums, diskettes, sound recordings, and other documents including existing data compilations from which information may be obtained or translated. RCW 42.17.020(48).
Second, the writing must relate to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function. Virtually every document a government agency has relates in some way to the conduct of government business or functions.
William Sheehan III operates a controversial Web site that is highly critical of police. In the past, Sheehan posted identifying information about King County police officers, including their home addresses, on the Web site.
In May 2000, Sheehan submitted public-records requests to local police agencies in the Puget Sound area, asking for a list of the full names of every law-enforcement officer and lawyer employed by them. After receiving the request, a King County Sheriff's Office employee determined that a person with access to the first and last name of a law-enforcement officer could determine their home addresses using public information provided by the King County Assessor's Office. The Public Disclosure Act shields the home addresses of government employees from disclosure.
As a result, King County refused to provide most of the information requested by Sheehan. Subsequently, the county refused a similar request from The Seattle Times.
RCW 42.56.050
Invasion of privacy, when.
A person's "right to privacy," "right of privacy," "privacy," or "personal privacy," as these terms are used in this chapter, is invaded or violated only if disclosure of information about the person: (1) Would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (2) is not of legitimate concern to the public. The provisions of this chapter dealing with the right to privacy in certain public records do not create any right of privacy beyond those rights that are specified in this chapter as express exemptions from the public's right to inspect, examine, or copy public records.
---
I think that publishing the names of the members of a GLBT group, or any kind of support group,.would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. If whoever decides these things thinks otherwise, they'd be taken to court, and they would lose. Releasing the names would be a goddamn clear violation of the 14th amendment.
I can see why people wouldn't want this released but as always we can see there are problems on the other side.
If the gov't sponsored some pro life club, should that information be made public? What about a KKK club in Mt. Vernon? (Glenn Beck was raised a Roman Catholic in Mt. Vernon, Washington)
Perhaps the city just shouldn't sponsor clubs.
Serious question. Is everyone in the city eligible to go to the meetings? Couldn't a mole go and report the names?
The public interest would be that special treatment could be given by members to members.
Of course, both conditions have to be met to deny the request.
The more I think about this, the more I don't like sponsorship of clubs by the city.
The names of public employees are generally considered to be public records. Their medical care, partially paid for by public money as part of the employer contribution to an insurance plan, is not a public record.
Should government sponsored clubs be made public? Yes, and they are. Whatever support services a public employer provides are certainly public records. The names of the people who use those services? No. Obviously not. Again, the right to privacy is enshrined in the US Constitution. State law doesn't trump federal law.
The answer to your "serious" question: No.
Thanks for the information that Glenn Beck was raised a Roman Catholic in Mt. Vernon, Washington. You win the non sequitur award.
Every individual has some phases of his life and his activities and some facts about himself that he
does not expose to the public eye, but keeps entirely to himself or at most reveals only to his family
or to close personal friends. Sexual relations, for example, are normally entirely private matters, as
are family quarrels, many unpleasant or disgraceful illnesses, most intimate personal letters, most
details of a man’s life in his home, and some of his past history that he would rather forget. When
these intimate details of his life are spread before the public gaze in a manner highly offensive to the
ordinary reasonable man, there is an actionable invasion of his privacy, unless the matter is one of
legitimate public interest
Given Irvin's history, he is in violation of the right to privacy. They can block it as much as they can counter-sue him. The problem with that, though, is that they'd out themselves in the course of suing him.
I have to stress that Dan is now entirely complicit in Irvin's actions and any aid or assistance rendered in an effort to out these individuals is an "actionable invasion of [their] privacy", as set forth in the RCW.
Of course, Dan could simply be egging him on so that people notice that, "hey, they're doing it too!"
Anyway, the only information that I can see being able to be released is:
-Requester of public spaces
-Circumstances of their meetings (and if it constitutes a legitimate "affinity group")
-To what extent were their actions confidential (typically with affinity groups, 100%)
-To what extent were they allowed to participate, primarily investigating their actual usage of work hours
Names are an invasion of privacy, and given his specific intent, Irvin has removed his eligibility to obtain any such information.
Most large employers do provide a wide range of support services to their employees, from mental health counseling to daycare to ridesharing. These things make employees happy, which is generally perceived to help the company make better products/provide better services. They may even save the employer money (insurance premium reductions due to health-related support groups, reduced need for parking spaces due to ridesharing, and so on).
Do we get a good return for our tax money from this? It's a valid question. I doubt that the city spends a lot for the GLBT group. Health insurance plans, on the other hand, I'm sure they pay out the wazoo. So, yeah, we should keep the city accountable for what they spend their money on.
Publishing the names of a GLBT group (or cancer support group, or employees who drive cars to work) does not in any way, shape, or form assist us in keeping the city accountable. That's a big reason why such a list will never be provided. It runs completely contrary to the intent (and to the letter) of the Public Records law.
Still, I'm alarmed by the people one way on the I71 issue and reversed on this. I think the I71 movement is totally legal but the benefit is questionable - at least in public opinion. To say those people don't risk fear but the LGBTQ group does is BS
Philip Charles Irvin, born: 25 JUL, 1950 (Age: 58), in Texass
Address: 7704 Mary Ave NW, Seattle 98117
Phone: 206.386.4526 or 206.782.3564
philip.irvin@seattle.gov (werk) or philip_irvin@juno.com (personal)
Married to: Joan Thelma Irvin, born 08 SEP 1942 (Age: 66). Teaches at the Secondary Bilingual Orientation Center (SBOC).
Daughter (still living at home): Lois Ruth Harris, PhD, born 20 OCT 1979 (Age: 30). Loves penguins.
Adjacent neighbor: Joyce Wilkinson (Age: 76) at 7708 Mary Ave NW (206.789.9987).
Friend him on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Philip-Ch…
I'd dig further, but only the first 20 minutes are free. Also, all information presented is merely a matter of "public record," and if this was a paying job, I'd have much more PUBLIC information about him after going to some offices and reading some papers. Luckily, I'm only motivated by paying gigs these days.
This information is only as accurate its public sources. mmbb_c is not liable for any inaccuracies or the misuse of this information. LIBRARIANS RULE!! :)
No one is required to disclose their sexual preference except as part of domestic partners getting benefits. This creates an interesting situation in that just roommates don't qualify for benefits. Should the public be able to know which of our employees are getting domestic benefits?
There is a big difference between a private company and the public sector.
#21 - are you saying that anybody that wants to go the club can't? Of course, the club would have to be open.
All of these exist. All of them use "city resources" to a certain extent. Some are semi-permanent (the bowling team) some are ad-hoc (the bake sale) Where exactly does the city's responsibility begin and end?
the historic Obama speech in Cairo will be shown at 9 pm pacific time on MSNBC.
Apparently he did great, invoking Abraham, Jesus and Muhammed [applause] what unites us is more than what divides us etc.
Just going there and speaking shows a level of respect that has been sadly missing.
He also worked in salaam aleukeum (sp?) in Arabic...
in sum, mazeltov!
I've found a case where the *personnel* records of Oregon fire and police on disability are public record (e.g., who they are, how much they were paid, whether they reported outside income), but that's a far fucking cry from their medical records.
If the city keeps records, they are public. Clearly if the city sponsors a bowling team or lets the team recruit through city resources all records that the city has are public.
If a group were allowed to meet in a room, all records making that room available would be a public record.
The law says that an agency doesn't need to create records that don't exist. If the LGBT group didn't have a membership through the city or in city correspondence, they wouldn't be obligated to create a document.
All WA State government records are public unless there is a strong reason to keep them private. Irvin could request the emails of all employees that he knows are part of the group and see to whom they mail.
If LGBT employees mentioned that they are LGBT in every email that wouldn't make them exempt, but that line could be redacted.
Once certain groups are exempt from disclosure, all groups will want the exemption.
Disclosing medical records in firefighters’ disability retirement records is not highly offensive when
none of the medical conditions in the records was disgraceful or humiliating. Seattle
Firefighters Union Local No. 27 v. Hollister, 48 Wn. App. 129, 136 (1987)
In that case, I am very much glad that I don't work for the City of Seattle, then. Thanks for the info.