Title: LARAMIE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. ONE v. CHEYENNE NEWSPAPERS, INC. d/b/a WYOMING TRIBUNE EAGE, and D. REED ECKHARDT

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

LARAMIE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. ONE v. CHEYENNE NEWSPAPERS, INC. d/b/a WYOMING TRIBUNE EAGE, and D. REED ECKHARDT2011 WY 55Case Number: No. S-10-0221Decided: 03/29/2011NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2010

 
 

LARAMIE 
COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. ONE,Appellant 
(Defendant),v.CHEYENNE NEWSPAPERS, INC., d/b/a WYOMING TRIBUNE 
EAGLE, and D. REED ECKHARDT,Appellees (Plaintiffs).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Laramie County

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

David 
Evans, Richard D. Bush, and Kristi Radosevich of Hickey & Evans, LLP, 
Cheyenne, Wyoming.  Argument by Mr. 
Bush.

 
 

Representing 
Appellees:

Michael 
J. Krampner and Ian K. Sandefer of Krampner, Fuller & Associates, Casper, 
Wyoming.  Argument by Mr. 
Sandefer.

 
 
Before 
KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, 
JJ.

 
 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Laramie County 
School District Number One (District) appeals from the district court's summary 
judgment in favor of Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a Wyoming Tribune Eagle, and 
D. Reed Eckhardt (Newspaper).  As the parties agreed that no genuine issues 
of material fact existed, the district court ruled as a matter of law that the 
Wyoming Public Records Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 16-4-201 through 205 (LexisNexis 
2009), read in conjunction with a provision of the Wyoming Education Act, Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 21-3-110(a)(ii)(A) (LexisNexis 2009), entitled Newspaper to 
information concerning the names and salaries of the individual employees of 
District.

 
 
[¶2]      Having reviewed 
this appeal under our standard of review for summary judgments, Bangs v. Schroth, 2009 WY 20, ¶ 20, 201 P.3d 442, 451-52 (Wyo. 2009), we now affirm the district court's summary 
judgment in favor of Newspaper.  The district court explained its decision 
in a well-organized and most thoughtful decision letter dated August 13, 2010, 
with which we are in complete agreement.  Consequently, in the interests of 
judicial economy, we herewith adopt that decision letter as this Court's 
official opinion in this case.  We now set out the pertinent parts of that 
decision letter:

 
 
FACTS

 
 
The 
facts of this case are not in dispute.  
In a letter dated December 11, 2009, representatives of Cheyenne 
Newspapers, Inc., which publishes the Wyoming Tribune Eagle (hereinafter the 
newspaper), requested that Laramie County School District Number One (the 
district) provide it with "all employment contracts or any other records 
depicting employee names in conjunction with their salaries or a listing of 
employee names with salaries."  The 
letter stated that the request was made under the Wyoming Public Records Act 
(WPRA), Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 16-4-201 through 16-[4]-205 (LexisNexis 
2009).

 
 
            
John Lyttle, Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources for the School 
District, responded by letter dated December 17, 2009.  Mr. Lyttle denied the newspaper's 
request for the information, citing Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-3-110(a)(ii)(A) 
(LexisNexis 2009), a provision in the Wyoming Education Code (WEC).  The district is obligated by that 
statute to publish the salaries of its employees by category without reference 
to the names of individual employees.  
The district contends that the statute makes it unlawful to disclose any 
individual employee's name and salary.   

 
 
            
The Plaintiffs, who include D. Reed Eckhardt, the executive editor of the 
Tribune Eagle, initiated this suit within three months of the denied 
request.  The complaint asked that 
the Court require the district to show cause as to why inspection of the 
requested records should not be permitted.  
The district timely answered, and the Court held a scheduling conference 
on May 19, 2010.  In addition to the 
position described above, the district also claimed that disclosure of the names 
of certain employees with their salaries would do substantial injury to the 
public interest.  A specific example 
given was that of an employee who had eluded a stalker and whose whereabouts 
might become known if his or her name and salary were published.  The district concedes that the number of 
employees who would fall into this latter category must be 
small.

 
 
            
The Court established a schedule for determination of the broader issue, 
which is whether the district must generally disclose salary information in 
conjunction with the names of its employees, so that a member of the press or 
public could learn how much any particular district employee earns.  The narrower issue of whether specific 
records might be withheld to protect particular employees was deferred.  The parties thereafter filed the 
dispositive motions and accompanying briefs which this letter 
addresses.

 
 

ISSUE 
PRESENTED

 
 
            
Does the Wyoming Public Records Act, read in conjunction with the Wyoming 
Education Code, entitle the Plaintiffs to information concerning the names and 
salaries of individual employees of a school district?

 
 

DISCUSSION

 
 
            
Standard of Review.  The parties agreed at the scheduling 
conference that there are no genuine issues of fact regarding the above 
issue.  The construction of the two 
statutes in this case is purely a legal issue which the Court can presently 
decide. Harper v. Fidelity and Guaranty 
Life Insurance Company, 2010 WY 89, ¶ 11[, 234 P.3d 1211, 1216] (Wyo. 2010); 
Wyo. R. Civ. Proc. 56(c).  Thus, 
whether this issue is framed as a motion for judgment on the pleadings or a 
motion for summary judgment, it places the legal question to which the parties 
seek an answer squarely before the Court.

 
 
            
Disclosure.  Both parties argue that the Wyoming 
Legislature has decided the question before the Court in clear and unambiguous 
terms, although they argue diametrically opposed contentions as to what the 
legislature decided.  The Court will 
begin with a survey of the WPRA's structure and some of its specific 
provisions.  As a general 
proposition, the WPRA mandates that all public records "shall be open for 
inspection by any person at reasonable times."1  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-4-202(a) 
(LexisNexis 2009).  The policy 
behind the rule is well settled as "one of disclosure, not secrecy," as "the 
legislature of this state has stressed the importance of making available to the 
public agency records."  Freudenthal v. Cheyenne Newspaper, Inc., 
2010 WY 80, ¶ 18, [233 P.3d 933, 938 (Wyo. 2010),] quoting Laramie River Conservation Council v. 
Dinger, 567 P.2d 731, 733 (Wyo. 1977).  
The state, its agencies, and local government entities are therefore 
required to operate in a "fishbowl" with only a few necessary exceptions.  Id., citing Allsop v. Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc., 
2002 WY 22, ¶ 10, 39 P.3d 1092, 1095-96 (Wyo. 2002).  
The Supreme Court has thus construed the WPRA to generally guarantee the 
public's right to access to documents which will reveal the details of 
operations of governmental entities, with some exceptions. 

 
 
            
The WPRA also contains specific provisions which relate to personnel 
information.  Wyoming Statute § 
16-4-203(d) provides in pertinent part as follows:

 
 
(d)       The 
custodian shall deny the right of inspection of the following records, unless 
otherwise provided by law:

 
 
            
[* * * *]

 
 
(i[ii])     Personnel files except 
those files shall be available to the duly elected and appointed officials who 
supervise the work of the person in interest.  Applications, performance ratings and 
scholastic achievement data shall be available only to the person in interest, 
and to the duly elected and appointed officials who supervise his work.  Employment contracts, working agreements or 
other documents setting forth the terms and conditions of [employment of public 
officials and] employees are not considered part of a personnel file and shall 
be available for public inspection.

 
 
(Emphasis 
added).  A "public employee" is, 
according to the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act, any "officer, employee, or 
servant of a governmental entity."  
Wyo. Stat. [Ann.] § 1-39-103[(a)(iv)(A)] (LexisNexis 2009). The WPRA thus 
contains a specific provision which requires that documents reflecting the terms 
and conditions of employment be made available.  It seems obvious that the amount an 
employee is paid is a term of any employment contract.

 
 
            
There was what the Court perceived as a suggestion by the district at 
oral argument on the pending motions that this statute might not require a 
governmental entity to make documents setting forth the terms and conditions of 
employment available in a form which would permit identification of particular 
employees.  If that was indeed the 
suggestion, the Court disagrees.

 
 
            
In Houghton v. Franscell, 870 P.2d 1050 (Wyo. 1994), the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether 
physician recruitment contracts must be made available to the public on 
request.  The Supreme Court held 
that they were public documents which had to be made available to the Gillette 
News-Record for inspection.  
Although the physicians in question were not employees of the hospital 
involved in the litigation, the Supreme Court did mention the above language as 
an example of the legislature's intent concerning documents which reflect how 
public funds are spent:

 
 
In 
fact, in that particular respect, Wyo. Stat. § 16-4-203(d)(iii) contains 
language in the last sentence expressly stating that information of the terms 
and conditions of public employment is not considered part of a personnel file 
and, therefore, shall not be withdrawn from public inspection.  One of the usual terms of a public 
employment document is the amount of public monies that will be paid by the 
public body to the public employee for services rendered.  Thus, information of the expenditure of 
public funds in that employment context is expressly available for public 
inspection.

 
 

Id. 
at 1056.  Public employment offers 
many benefits and imposes some burdens.  
The Court interprets the language of the above statute and the Supreme 
Court's comments concerning it to mean that one burden of public employment is 
that any person who makes a proper request may learn the compensation paid to a 
public employee, regardless of the level at which he toils for a governmental 
entity.  The Court therefore 
believes that the district would be obligated to make this information available 
to the public and Plaintiffs unless there is some other specific legal provision 
providing otherwise.  Of course, no 
governmental entity would be required to disclose personal information such as 
address, age, date of birth, social security number or other similar personal 
information, since these do not relate to the terms and conditions of 
employment, and would impact privacy rights of employees.

 
 
            
Although state freedom of information acts vary widely in their specific 
terms, the majority of courts presented with the issue of whether the public is 
entitled to documents indicating the names, positions, and salaries of 
individual employees have held that these documents must be made available for 
inspection.  See, e.g., Tiberino v. Spokane County, 
13 P.3d 1104, 1109 (Wash. App. 2000); Mans v. Lebanon School Board, 290 A.2d 866, 867 (N.H. 1972); Clymer v. City of 
Cedar Rapids, 601 N.W.2d 42 (Iowa 1999); Annot., Payroll Records of Individual 
Government Employees as Subject to Disclosure to Public, 100 A.L.R. 699 
(1980).

 
 
            
The district argues that the WPRA contains an exception to the WPRA's 
general rule of disclosure if disclosure "would be contrary to any state 
statute."  This exception is indeed 
contained in the WPRA.  Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 16-4-203(a)(i) (LexisNexis 2009).  
At the outset, it should be noted that the WPRA has consistently been 
interpreted to favor disclosure, and that exceptions are to be construed 
narrowly.  Houghton, 870 P.2d  at 1052.  The Supreme Court has recognized that 
the statutory language of the WPRA creates a presumption that the denial of 
inspection of a public record is contrary to public policy.  Id. [at 1053], quoting Sheridan Newspapers, Inc. v. City of 
Sheridan, 660 P.2d 785, 796 (Wyo. 1983).  The Court is also cognizant of the 
Supreme Court's comment that constitutional rights of freedom of the press and 
due process prohibit the state from excluding an entire class of public records 
from inspection absent a compelling state interest.  Id. at 1053.

 
 
            
The district argues that disclosure of its employees' salaries correlated 
to the employees' names is contrary to a specific provision in the Wyoming 
Education Code, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-3-110(a)(ii)(A) (LexisNexis 2009), and that 
this information is therefore exempt from disclosure regardless of the express 
terms of the WPRA.  It contends that 
the WEC provides the exclusive means for making its employees' salary 
information available to the public, and that the legislature has clearly 
expressed its intent that the information be provided in categories without 
reference to individual names.  It 
also relies in part on the well-established rule of statutory construction that 
a specific statute controls over a general statute covering the same 
subject.  See Horse Creek Conservation District v. 
State ex rel. Wyoming Attorney General, 2009 WY 143, ¶ 39, 221 P.3d 306, 318 
(Wyo. 2009).

 
 
            
The statute in question provides as follows:

 
 
(a)       The board 
of trustees in each school district shall:

 
 
[* 
* * *]

(ii)        . . . 
Individual yearly gross salary payments need be published only once in March of 
each year:

            
(A)       
Each individual annual gross salary shall be identified by category and 
each individual salary shall be published as a gross dollar amount without 
identification other than by category.  
Categories shall include superintendent, assistant superintendent, high 
school principal, assistant high school principal, junior high principal, junior 
high assistant principals, elementary principals, elementary assistant 
principals, first grade teachers, second grade teachers, third grade teachers, 
fourth grade teachers, fifth grade teachers, sixth grade teachers, kindergarten 
teachers, high school departmental teachers (business, language arts, foreign 
languages, science, social studies, mathematics, or other), vocal music, 
instrumental music, elementary music, secondary art, elementary art, secondary 
physical education, elementary physical education, vocational education, 
secondary guidance counselors, secondary librarians, elementary librarians, 
driver education, special education teachers, remedial teachers, nurses, 
teacher's aides, head coaches, assistant coaches, dramatics, secondary 
secretarial, junior high secretarial, elementary secretarial, business managers, 
janitorial, bus drivers, and other categories which may be selected so that 
every individual salary may be categorized.  Each category shall show a cumulative 
subtotal and there shall be a grand total of all categories.  At the end of the salary publication 
there shall be printed the district salary schedule . . . 
.

 
 
W.S. 
§ 21-3-110(a)(ii)(A).  The newspaper 
interprets the above provision quite differently than the district does.  It argues that the statute only controls 
the manner in which the Board of Trustees must publish certain information at 
its own expense on an annual basis.  
It contends that the WPRA, on the other hand, requires that public 
entities permit the public to inspect public records, including documents 
reflecting the terms and conditions of employment of particular public 
employees, at reasonable times upon request.  It asks the Court to find that the two 
statutes are not in conflict, and that thus the exception for records which may 
not be disclosed because they are "contrary to statute" does not 
apply.

 
 
            
The Court is compelled to agree with the newspaper.  As already noted, exceptions to the WPRA 
rights of inspection must be construed narrowly in view of the public policy 
evident in that statute and the Supreme Court's ruling concerning it.  § 21-3-110(a)(ii)(A) does not contain an 
express statement that information concerning the identity of a school 
district's employees is confidential information which must not be revealed to 
the public, at least in conjunction with salary information, notwithstanding the 
provisions of the WPRA.  The public 
has a right to know how a governmental entity expends public funds, and the 
Supreme Court has held that restrictions on access to this kind of information 
must be "expressly textual" for that reason.  Houghton, 870 P.2d at 105[6].  It seems obvious that the compensation 
of public employees results in the expenditure of public funds, and falls within 
the above rule.

 
 
            
Support for this conclusion is also found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
16-4-203(d)(iii), which was quoted above.  
By its express terms, as confirmed by the dicta concerning it in Houghton, it permits public access to 
information concerning the terms and conditions of employment of all public 
employees, from the most humble to the most exalted, including sufficient 
information to determine what an individual employee is 
paid.

 
 
            
The construction of § 21-3-110(a)(ii)(A) argued for by the district is 
linked to no rational legislative purpose.  
If construed as the district argues, it would make secret the amount any 
particular school district employee earns, from the school janitor up to the 
district superintendent.  At oral 
argument, the district was unable to suggest any reason why the legislature 
would choose to treat janitors who work for school districts any differently 
from janitors who clean city or county buildings, and the Court can conceive of 
none on its own.  The legislature is 
presumed to act in a thoughtful and rational manner with full knowledge of 
existing law, and therefore statutes are required "to be construed in harmony 
with existing law, and as part of an overall and uniform system of 
jurisprudence."  Thunderbasin Land, Livestock & 
Investment Company v. County of Laramie, 5 P.3d 774, 780 (Wyo. 2000), 
quoting Wetering v. Eisele, 682 P.2d 1055, 1061 (Wyo. 1984).

 
 
            
The construction argued for by the newspaper allows the Court to conclude 
that the legislature chose to limit the extent of information which the school 
districts must provide at their own expense annually for any number of valid 
reasons, including expense of publication.  
On the other hand, construction of the statute as the district suggests 
would leave the Court with no rational explanation as to why the legislature 
would want to treat school district employees differently than employees of 
other public entities.  The Court 
concludes that while the legislature intended that school districts would offer 
general salary information which was not specific to any employee to the public 
through annual publication, it did not intend to make specific salary 
information confidential as to those employees if a member of the public or the 
press wishes to expend the time and effort to obtain that information by making 
a proper request.

 
 
            
The district points out that previous Wyoming Supreme Court cases 
discussing the WPRA are not directly on point because none involve 
interpretation of § 21-3-110(a)(ii)(A) of the education code in conjunction with 
the provisions of the WPRA which have been described at length.  While previous Wyoming Supreme Court 
cases have not in fact construed the two specific provisions involved in this 
case, those cases hold that exceptions to the disclosure required by the WPRA 
must be clearly set out in legislation, and that they should not generally be 
applied against entire classes of documents.  See, e.g., Sheridan Newspaper, Inc., 660 P.2d 785 (holding in part that "rolling logs" and "case reports" compiled by the 
Sheridan police department could not be disclosed from inspection as a class 
under a discretionary exception to disclosure for investigatory or intelligence 
records, or those compiled for prosecution purposes); Houghton, 870 P.2d 1050 (holding that a 
physician's recruitment contract was not exempt from disclosure where it did not 
fall within the definition W.S. § 16-4-203(d)(vii), which excepts certain 
classifications of hospital records from disclosure).  As noted above, the cases also suggest 
that there are constitutional implications to the rights of access of the press 
and public, and a construction of legislation which might impact those rights 
must presume that the legislature intended to protect them.  See Sheridan Newspaper, supra, at 
794-97; Houghton, supra, at 
1053.

 
 
            
In this case, when § 16-4-203(a)(i) and § 16-4-203(d)([i]ii) of the WPRA 
and § 21-3-110(a)(ii)(A) of the WEC are read in conjunction with each other, the 
provisions of the education code are not clear enough to exempt the records 
sought in light of the specific language of the WPRA concerning the right of 
access to documents relating to terms and conditions of public employment.  The district asks the Court to render a 
decision which would have to stubbornly swim upstream against a strong current 
of prior Wyoming Supreme Court rulings which protect the public's right of 
access to information as to how its money is being spent, which the Court will 
decline to do.

 
 
            
It should be noted that both the parties and the Court recognize that the 
district cannot be compelled to produce a list of employees and their salaries 
if one does not already exist, although they are free to do so if they wish in 
lieu of making the documents identified by § 16-4-203(d)(iii) available for 
inspection.  It was not disclosed 
whether any such list was in existence, and in this electronic age, whether a 
document exists or not may depend on whether a computer is directed to produce 
it.  In any event, it may be less 
labor-intensive for the district to produce a computer printout of names and 
salaries, which the newspaper has indicated it is willing to accept.  If the district is not willing to 
produce such a printout, § 16-4-203(d)(iii) requires it to permit inspection of 
existing documents that contain the information sought at a reasonable 
time.

 
 

Public 
Interest Issues and Form of Order.

 
 
            
As noted above, the district contends that certain employee information 
should not be made available for inspection because disclosing it would be 
contrary to the public interest.  Wyo. Stat. [Ann.] § 16-4-203(g) provides 
that a custodian may deny the right of inspection of certain specific records 
which are otherwise subject to inspection on the grounds that inspection would 
do substantial injury to the public interest.  This section would require the district 
to apply to the district court for an order finding that disclosure would in 
fact cause substantial injury to the public interest in the case of a particular 
employee's information, if it chose to deny access.

 
 
            
As already mentioned, the district contends that disclosure of at least 
some of its employees' names could be contrary to the public interest because, 
for example, those employees might be located by a stalker after publication of 
their name and salary.  The parties 
seem to agree that if such a discretionary exception is available, it would have 
to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, probably after an evidentiary 
hearing.  At argument, the district 
indicated that only a small number of employees could be expected to fall within 
this category.  It is certain that 
the public interest exception would not exempt all records concerning the terms 
and conditions of employment of all public employees who work for the district, 
and the district has never contended that it would.  Whether the exception is available as a 
matter of law in the hypothetical cases posed by the district remains to be 
seen.

 
 
            
The existence of these potential claims to exemption from the disclosure 
requirement determined in the first portion of this decision leaves the case in 
an awkward posture.  On the one 
hand, the Court has concluded that the newspaper is correct in its assertion 
that it is entitled to employee-specific salary information.  Once it obtains that information, it is 
free to publish whatever it chooses concerning it, free of any court-imposed 
limitations.  See New York Times Co. v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713, 714, 91 S. Ct. 2140, 2141, 29 L. Ed. 822 (1971), quoting Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70, 83 S. Ct. 631, 639, 9 L. Ed. 2d 584 (1963) (noting that a prior restraints 
come to Court "bearing a heavy presumption against constitutional 
validity").

 
 
            
On the other hand, the ruling the Court has made will impact a large 
number of Laramie County School District employees and may also impact other 
districts.  The district will 
undoubtedly wish to appeal that ruling to the Wyoming Supreme Court, which is 
the final arbiter of the meaning of the two statutes involved in this case.  The Court believes that it is in the 
best interest of both parties to secure the entry of a final judgment which will 
permit review by that court as soon as possible.

 
 
            
However, the district argues that the Court should stay its decision 
until it can resolve the public interest exception cases, if there are any.  This could take some time, since each is 
case-specific and there is as of yet no indication as to the number of such 
cases.  The newspaper has indicated 
that it has no interest in causing problems for employees who might, for 
example, be victimized by a stalker, if there are any, and so there may be no 
cases to resolve because it would in all likelihood not pursue information 
pertaining to those employees.

 
 
            
The Court intends, absent a showing that such action is improper, to 
enter a final order declaring the newspaper's general entitlement to the 
information contained in its request without resolving the public interest 
exception issue pertaining to particular employees in this case for the 
following reasons:

 
 

·          
In 
its motion for summary judgment, the newspaper asked the Court to declare its 
rights under the WPRA as they relate to the records request it made of the 
district, which was for information which would permit it to connect particular 
salary information to particular employees.  The district contended that it was not 
permitted to make this general class of information available.  The Court has resolved that issue by 
declaring the rights and duties of the parties.

 
 

·          
Wyoming 
Statute § 16-4-203(d) requires that a custodian who withholds a particular 
record apply to the district court for an order finding that disclosure of that 
record would do substantial injury to the public interest.  The district did not counterclaim as to 
any particular record, although it raised the above as an affirmative 
defense.  The district admittedly 
had good reason not to counterclaim earlier, because it faced the massive task 
of contacting some fifteen hundred employees, and because the Court scheduled 
this issue for later disposition.

 
 

·          
The 
question of potential injury to any particular employee is fact-intensive and 
likely to require considerable time for resolution, during which the district 
could not appeal of right to the Wyoming Supreme 
Court.

 
 

·          
The 
Court's decision as to the newspaper's general right of access does not address 
any particular case, and the district would presumably be able to file an 
appropriate action to resolve the public interest exception cases without fear 
that this decision would in some way bind it in those 
proceedings.

 
 

·          
It 
is quite likely that any meritorious claim of potential injury to an employee 
will be resolved by agreement.

 
 

·          
If 
a stay of the above decision declaring the newspaper's general right of access 
is necessary, one can be sought under Wyoming Rule of Appellate Procedure 
4.02.

 
 
Because 
the decision contemplated is a departure from the process developed in the 
scheduling conference, a hearing on the form of relief will be set on the 
request of either party.

 
 

Conclusion

 
 
            
Summary judgment will be granted in favor of the Plaintiffs, declaring 
that the Defendant must make the documents described in Wyoming Statute § 
16-4-203(d)(iii) available to them for inspection, without concealment of the 
identity of the employee involved.  
Other personal information such as address, telephone numbers, social 
security information, and date of birth may be redacted to protect employee 
privacy, since this information is not part of the terms and conditions of 
employment.  At its option, the 
district will be declared to have satisfied its obligation of inspection if it 
produces the list of employees and their salaries initially requested by 
Plaintiffs.  This ruling is without 
prejudice to the district's ability to claim that disclosure of the records of 
particular employees would do a substantial injury to the public interest and to 
seek a court order so finding.  

 
 
[¶3]      
Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-4-201(v) (LexisNexis 2009) provides: 

 
 
            
"Public Records" when not otherwise specified includes the original and 
copies of any paper, correspondence, form, book, photograph, photostat, film, 
microfilm, sound recording, map drawing  
or other document, regardless of physical form or characteristics that 
have been made by the state of Wyoming and any counties, municipalities, and 
political subdivisions thereof and by any agencies of the state, counties, 
municipalities and political subdivisions thereof, or received by them in 
connection with the transaction of public business, except those privileged or 
confidential by law[.]