### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE
ER ASMUS BAXTER, ASIA FIELDS, ) No. 8 2418

- 0

- I a nd JULIA FURUKAWA, ) ) Respondents, )

) v. ) ) WESTERN WASHINGTON ) PUBLISHED OPINION UNIVERSITY , an agency of the ) State of Washington, ) ) Respondent , )

) JOHN DOES 2, 3, 4, and 6, ) ) Appellants

. )

)
V ERELLEN , J.

— In this Public Records Act dispute, three j ournalists requested
the “ final results ” of “ disciplinary proceedings ” including the student ’s name where Western Washington U niversity had determined a student was responsible for a crime of violence or nonforcible sex offense in the last five years. Four students appeal the trial court’s determination that the “final results” including the names of the
students are sub ject to public disclosure. Washington’s Public Records Act (PRA) mandates broad public disclosure. 1 Its exemptions are to be construed narrowly to ensure that the public interest is fully

1 Ch. 4 2.56 RCW.No. 82418

- 0

- I/ 2

2

prote cted. We conclude the disciplinary results are not exempt from disclosure under RCW 42.56.230(1), the “ public schools student file ” exemption, because the term “public schools” as used in that exemption does not contemplate postseconda ry educational insti tutions. We also conclude the PRA “other statute ” 2 exemption does not extend to t he Family Educational Rights and Privacy Ac t of 1974 (FERPA) here because the “final results” exception to FERPA allows disclosure of the “final results of any disciplinary proceeding” where the alleged student committed “any crime of violence” or “nonforcible sex offense” in violation of the institution’s rules or policies. 3 And Washington state regulations governing disciplinary proceedings at the university pursuant to the university’s student code of conduct stand alone and therefore do not constitute an “ other statute ” exemption under the PRA. Finally, the students do not establish an actionable lack of notice that their disciplinary results could be disclosed under the P RA.
We affirm. FACTS Between 2013 and 2018, John Does 1 through 7 committed various crimes of violence and/or nonforcible sex offenses while they were students, in violation of the university’s student code of conduct.

2 RCW 42.56.070(1).
3 20 U.S.C. § 1232g.No. 82418

- 0

- I/ 3

3

On October 10, 2018, three journalis ts, Erasmus Baxter, Asia Fields, and Julia
Furukawa , sent a public records request to the university’s p ublic r ecords o fficer , Dolapo Akinrinade

. The j ournalists’ request stated: Under Washington’s Public Records Act, we would like to request the final r esults, including the student’s name, of disciplinary proceedings where Western has determined a student was responsible for a crime of violence or nonforcible sexual offense in the last five years. If you deny any part of this request, please cite the sp ecific exemption that applies. [ 4 ] In response, university officials used Symplicity Advocate, a software tool , “to create a spreadsheet containing data potentially responsive to the request.” 5 On November 8, 2018, “[a]fter conducting research and verifying that t he documents were responsive,” Akinrinade provided the j ournalists with “(i) a table of sexual misconduct offenses and resulting discipline imposed, with the names of the offenders redacted, (ii) a table of violent offenses and resulting discipline imposed, with the names of the offenders redacted, and (iii) an exemption log.” 6 The university noted in the exemption log that it found the names of students exempt from disclosure under RCW 42.56.23 0(1) of the PRA

. On May 6, 2019, the j ournalists filed suit against the university seeking a court order to compel the university to produce the student names. At some point after this lawsuit was filed, the university determined that the names of the students were not exe mpt from disclosure

. That summer, the university

4 C lerk’s Papers (C P ) at 144.
5 CP at 240.
6 CP at 2, 220

.No. 82418

- 0

- I/ 4

4

advised each of the involved students it intended to disclose student names in an unredacted version of the response previously provided , and the students had the opportunity to intervene and seek injunctive relief. Seven students intervened. The

s tudents and the j ournalists stipulated that the university would “not release the requested records relating to John Does 1

- 7 without redacting the intervenor Does’

nam es until such date as the superior court rules on the question of whether those records are exempt or not, unless otherwise agreed.” 7 That August, the university sent a letter to the j ournalists and the s tudents stating , “ W ith the exception of John Doe Pla intiffs 1

- 7 who have i ntervened in the lawsuit, the updated response will include the unredacted names of the students whose records were responsive” to the request. 8 Before the university released the updated response, it “again reviewed the records to r e - verify that the underlying behavior . . . for each student at issue fell within the definitions of a crime of violence or nonforcible sexual offense as set forth in 34 CFR 99.39.” 9 The university issued the updated response disclosing the name of each s tudent who committed a “ crime of violence ” or “ nonforcible sex offense ” and the discipline imposed with only the names of Does 1

- 7 redacted.
Does 1

- 7 filed motions for injunctive relief in accordance with RCW 42.56.540 , and the j ournalists filed a cross mo tion for partial summary judgment. On August 10,

7 CP at 29.
8 CP at 268.
9 CP at 240.No. 82418

- 0

- I/ 5

5

2020, the trial court issued its oral decision. That October, the trial court issued an order denying the Does’ motions for inju nctive relief and granting the j ournalists’ cross motion for summary judgment . In its written decision , the court noted that Does “failed to carry their burden of proof to establish that the names of the students whose offenses are listed in the tables provided by [the university ] to the Plaintiffs are exempt under either the [PRA] or [FERPA].” 10 The trial court entered a partial judgment certified under CR 54(b) to enable
Does 1

- 7 to immediately appeal the court’s decision without having to wait for the final resolution of the j ournalists’ claims against the university

. 11
Does 2 , 3, 4, 5, and 6 (the students) petitioned for direct review to the Supreme Court. 12 The Supreme Court denied the s tudents’ petition and transferred
the case to this court. 13 ANALYSIS
The s tudents argue that the trial court erred in denying their motions for injunct ive relief because they contend the PRA cannot “be used as a tool to acquire the names of students who have been disciplined by a public university .” 14 We

10 CP at 338.
11 The j ournalists’ claims against the university have been stayed and remain p ending before the trial court.

12 Doe 1 and Doe 7 sought declaratory and injunctive relief before the trial court but did not appeal.

13 On October 11, 20 21, Doe 5 withdrew his appeal.
14 Br. of Appellants at 2

- 3.No. 82418

- 0

- I/ 6

6

review agency actions “taken or challenged” under RCW 42.56.030 through .520 de

novo. 15
The “‘ fundamental objective ’ ” of statutory interpretation is to “‘ ascertain and carry out ’ ” the legislature’s intent. 16 “In determining the meaning of the statutory exemption at issue, we apply general principles of statutory construction.” 17 “These principles begin with the premise that if a statute is plain and unambiguous, its meaning must be derived from the language of the statute itself .” 18 Generally, “the PRA mandates broad public disclosure” 19 and “gives the public access to the public records of state and local agencies, with the laudable goals of governmental transparency and accountability.” 20 “The PRA is ‘liberally construed’ and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy and to assure that the public interest wi ll be fully protected.” 21 To that end, “[t]he PRA requires

15 RCW 42.56.550(3).
16 Servais v. Port of Bellingham , 127 Wn.2d 820, 830, 904 P.2d 1124 (1995) (quoting Rozner v. Bellevue , 116 Wn.2d 342, 347, 804 P.2d 24 (1991))

.

17 Limstrom v. Ladenburg , 136 Wn.2d 595, 606, 963 P.2d 869 (1998) (citing Harmon v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs. , 134 Wn .2d 523, 530, 951 P.2 d 770 (1998); Western Petroleum Importers, Inc. v. Friedt , 127 Wn .2d 420, 423, 899 P.2d 792 (1995)).

18 Id. (citing State v. Mollichi , 132 Wn .2d 80, 87, 936 P.2d 408 (1997); Marquis v. City of Spokane , 130 Wn .2d 97, 107, 922 P.2d 43 (1996) ).

19 White v. Clark C ounty , 188 Wn. App. 622, 631, 354 P.3d 38 (2015) (citing Sargent v. Seattle Police Dep’t , 179 Wn.2d 376, 385, 314 P.3d 1093 (2013)).

20 City of Fed eral Way v. Koenig , 167 Wn.2d 341, 343, 217 P.3d 1172 (2009).
21 Fisher Broad.

- Seattle TV LLC v. City of Seattle , 180 Wn.2d 515, 521, 326 P.3d 688 (2014) (citing RCW 42.56.030).No. 82418

- 0

- I/ 7

7

agencies to disclose any public record on request unless the record falls within [an] exemption.” 22 “There are three sources of PRA exemptions. First, the PRA itself contains specific enumerated e xemptions ” in sections .210 through .480. 23 Second, public records can be withheld if they fall within an “ other statute ” which exempts or prohibits disclosure of the specific information or records. 24 “Third, the Washington Constitution may exempt certain records from production because the constitution supersedes contrary statutory laws.” 25 Only the first tw o sources are relevant here.
I. Student File Exemption
The “ student file ” exemption, RCW 42.56.230(1), provides , “ P ersonal information in any files maintained for students in public schools ” is “ exempt from public inspection and copying under this chapter.” The s tudents argue that the
unred acted disciplinary results are categorically exempt from disclosure

. In Lindeman v. Kelso School Dis t rict No. 45 8 , o ur Supreme Court relied upon dictionary definitions to conclude that “‘ personal information ’ means ‘ of or relating to a

22 Freedom Found. v. Wash. State Dep’t of Transp., Div. of Wash. State Ferries , 168 Wn. App. 278, 287, 276 P.3d 341 (2012) (citing Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane County v. Spokane County , 172 Wn.2d 702, 715, 261 P.3d 119 (2011)).

23 White , 188 Wn. App. at 630

- 31 (citing Dep’t of Transp. v. Mendoza de Sugiyama , 182 Wn. App. 588, 596, 330 P.3d 209 (2014)).

24 RCW 42.56.070(1).
25 White , 188 Wn. App. at 631 (citing Freedom Found. v. Gregoire , 178 Wn.2d 686, 695, 310 P.3d 1252 (2013)).No. 82418

- 0

- I/ 8

8

particular person, ’” “‘ affecting one individual, ’” “‘ affecting each of many individuals, ’”

“‘ peculiar or proper to private concerns, ’” and “‘ not public or general. ’ ” 26 Here, t he students contend , and the j ournalists agree , that the unredacted disciplinary results including student names contain “ personal information ” as defined in section .230 (1)

. 27
But the students and the j ournalists disagree whether the unredacted disciplinary results were located in files maintained for students as contemplated by section .230(1)

. The s tudents argue that because the PRA request here involves information that was “compiled by reviewing disciplinary records , ” the unredacted disciplinary results are “by their very nature maintained in student files ” and are distinct from the videotape at issue in Lindeman

. 28
In Lindeman , two elementary school students engaged in an altercation on a
school bus. 29 A surveillance video camera was installed on the bus and recorded the
altercation. 30 The parents of one of the students sent a formal request to the district seeking disclosure of the videotape under the PRA. 31 The district denied the parents ’

26 Lindeman v. Kelso School Dis t rict No. 458 , 162 W n.2d 196, 202, 172 P.3d 329 (2007) (quoting W EBSTER ’ S T HIRD N EW I NT ’ L D ICTIONARY 1686 (2002)).

27 See Br. of Resp ’ t s Baxter et al

. at 18

- 19; Wash. Court of Appeals oral argument, Baxter et al., v. Western Washington University , No. 82418

- 0

- I (Nov, 5, 2021), at 17 min., 48 sec., through 17 min., 56 sec. https://www.tvw.org/watch/? clientID=9375922947&eventID=2021 111017 &autoStartStream=true

.

28 Br. of Appellants at 19.
29 Lindeman , 162 Wn.2d at 199.
30 Id.
31 Id. at 199

- 200.No. 82418

- 0

- I/ 9

9

request , s tating that the videotape was exempt from disc losure under the “ student file ” exemption. 32 The parents sued the district , arguing that the district violated the PRA by failing to disclose the videotape. Our Supreme Court held that the videotape was subje ct to disclosure because it was a “surveillance tape , ” not a “student record , ” and therefore , it was not a “file maintained for students.” 33 The court noted that the physical location of the information is not determinative and that “[e]ven if the [d]istri ct ultimately used the videotape as the basis for disciplining the student who committed the assault, the videotape itself would not thereby be converted into personal information in files maintained for students since the videotape does not reveal whether discipline was or was not imposed.” 34 The court reasoned,
T he phrase “ files maintained for students in public schools” denotes the collection of individual student files that public schools necessarily maintain for their students. The student file exemp tion contemplates the protection of material in a public school student’s permanent file, such as a student’s grades, standardized test results, assessments, psychological or physical evaluations, class schedule, address, telephone number, social security number, and other similar records. [ 35 ] Here, unlike the videotape at issue in Lindeman , the unredacted disciplinary
results contained “ personal information ” located i n “ files maintained for students. ” The disciplinary results were maintained on the university’s computer system and

32 Id.
33 Id. at 203.
34 Id.
35 Id. at 202.No. 82418

- 0

- I/ 10

10

accessed with Symplicity Advocate, an online software tool that manages the disciplinary records of the university’s students, including the names of stude nts who were responsible for a “ crime of violence or nonforcible sex ual offense in the last five
years. ” The unredacted disciplinary results are simply the compilation of selected portions of the disciplinary f iles maintained for students. The j ournalists contend that because the “ tables list numerous offenses by

numerou s students [,] these records obviously are not part of any particular student’s education records” and therefore are not “in files maintained for students.” 36 But even though the unredacted disciplinary results contain the information for more than
one stud ent , that does not mean th e individual disciplinary results are not in files maintained for student s . Along with assessments, achievements and evaluations, a disciplinary record that a student committed a serious violation of the student code of
conduct would logically and reasonably be located in a student’s permanent file. We
conclude the compilation of disciplinary results sought here for several students are “in files maintained for students.” Finally, we must decide whether “public schools” as presc ribed by section
.230 (1) includes the university

. The s tudents argue that “a plain reading of the PRA compels a conclusion that Washington’s public universities and colleges

— such as WWU

— should be treated no differently than any other public schools.” 37 In essence, the students dismember the statutory phrase “public schools” to separately analyze ,

36 Br. of Resp ’ ts Baxter et al. at 19.
37 Reply Br. of Appellants at 4.No. 82418

- 0

- I/ 11

11

first , whether the university is a “school” and second , whether it is “public” rather than private. “Where the legislature has not defined a term, [we] will give the term its plain and ordinary meaning ascertained from a standard dictionary.” 38 “When determining a statute’s plain meaning, we consider ‘ the ordinary meaning of words, the basic rules of grammar, and the statutory context to conclude what the legislat ure has provided for in the statute. ’ ” 39 We also examine related statutory provisions. 40 Further, individual words should not be read in isolation; the plain meaning of two words used in sequence is sometimes more than the simplest and broadest meaning of those words when viewed individually. 41 The plain and precise meaning of two words used in conjunction is part of the context recognized under the plain meaning
rule. 42 “A statute is ambiguous when it is susceptible to two or more reasonable interpretatio ns, but a statute is not ambiguous merely because different

38 Cornu

- Labat v. Hosp. Dist. No. 2 Grant C ount y , 177 Wn.2d 221, 231, 298 P.3d 741 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quo ting State v. Watson , 146 Wn.2d 947, 954, 51 P.3d 66 (2002))

.

39 Citizens Alliance for Property Rights Legal Fund v. San Juan County , 184 Wn.2 d 428, 435, 359 P.3d 753 (2015) (quoting In re Forfeiture of One 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle , 166 Wn.2d 834, 838

- 39, 215 P.3d 166 (2009)).

40 Cornu

- Labat , 177 Wn.2d at 231

. 41 State v. K.L.B. , 180 Wn.2d 735, 7 42, 328 P.3d 886 (2014) (individual words should no t be read in isolation); State v. Roggenkamp , 153 Wn.2d 614, 623, 106 P.3d 196 (2005) (the meaning of words may be indicated or controlled by those with which they are associated).

42 K.L.B. , 180 Wn.2d at 7 42; Roggenkamp , 153 Wn.2d at 623.No. 82418

- 0

- I/ 12

12

interpretations are conceivable.” 43 “If a statute is ambiguous, we may look to the legislative history of the statute and the circumstances surrounding its enactment to determine legislative inten t.” 44 The PRA does not define the term “public schools.” Webster’s Third International Dictionary defines “ public school ” as: [ (1)(a) ] any of various endowed secondary boarding schools in Great Britain offering a classical curriculum and preparing boys [especially] for the ancient universities or for public service. [(b)] a similar school for girls. [(2)(a)] a tax supported school contr olled by a local governmental authority; [specifically] an elementary or secondary school in the U.S. providing free education for the children of residents of a specified area [and (b)] the building housing a public school. [ 45 ]
The s tudents contend that “[i]t is far more likely that the legislature [meant] the common meaning [of] the term “public school” in the exemption with an understanding that it would be applied to Washington’s universities.” 46 But as noted
above , “plain meaning” is not limited to th e most basic meaning of each word in isolation. Rather, we should consider the standard dictionary definition of the precise term used in the statute. Here “public school” has a dictionary definition limited to elementary or secondary schools providing f ree education for the children of

43 State v. Gray , 174 Wn.2d 920, 927, 280 P.3d 1110 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Estate of Haselwood v. Bremerton Ice Arena, Inc. , 166 Wn.2d 489, 498, 210 P.3d 308 (2009))

.

44 Five Corners Family Farmers v. State , 173 Wn.2d 296, 30 5

- 06 , 268 P.3d 892 (20 11) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Res. Dev., Inc. v. Cananwill, Inc. , 150 Wn.2d 674, 682, 80 P.3d 598 (2003))

.

45 W EBSTER ’ S T HIRD N EW I NTERNATIONAL D ICTIONARY 1836 (2002) (emphasis added).

46 Reply Br. of Appellants at 5.No. 82418

- 0

- I/ 13

13

residents of a particular area. The dictionary definition of the term “public school” does not extend to postsecondary educational institutions. 47 And related statutes in the PRA provide further support that the term “pub lic schools” only refers to schools below the college or university level. Our legislature has long recognized the divide between “ higher education ” involving colleges and universities under Title 28B RCW and “common school provisions” limited to “public schools” that exclude colleges or universities under Title 28A RCW. Specifically, in 2009 , the legislature enacted RCW 42.56.320, the “educational information” section of the PRA , which references Title 28B , “higher education provisions , ” and Title 28A , “common school provisions.” Further, in 2020, the legislature enacted RCW 42.56.375 , the “s exual misconduct in postsecondary educational institutions ” section of the PRA , which also

47 Although we need not r ely on a legal dictionary to ascertain the “common meaning” of a nontechnical term, we note Black’s Law Dictionary defines “ public school ” as “[a]n elementary, middle, or high school established under state law, regulated by the local state authorities in the various political subdivisions, funded and maintained by public taxation, and open and free to all children of the particular district where the school is located.” B LACK ’ S L AW D ICTIONARY 1613 (11th ed. 2019). At oral argument before this court, appe llants’ counsel argued that the plain and ordinary meaning of “ public school ” encompassed colleges and universities. In support of his assertion , he referenced two dictionary definitions of the term “school.” Appellants’ counsel noted that Black’s Law Dictionary defines “school” as an “institution or place of public instruction” and that Merriam Webster’s Dictionary defines “school” as “an institution for teaching children or a college or a university .” See Wash. Court of Appeals oral a rgument, Baxter et al., v. Western Washington University , No. 82418

- 0 (Nov. 5, 2021 ) , at 1 min., 35 sec. through 4 min., 2 sec ., https://www.tvw.org/watch/ ?clientID=9375922947&eventID =2 021111017&autoSt artStream=true

. But appellants’ argument ignores the distinction between the terms “school” and “public school s .” And the plain meaning rule does not compel us to ignore the most precise meaning of a term in the context of the entire statut ory and consti tutional scheme.No. 82418

- 0

- I/ 14

14

references Title 28B. Section .375 directly refers to RCW 28B.112.040 , which under subsection (4) defines a “postsecondary educational institution” as “an institution of higher education as defined in RCW 28B.10.016.” RCW 28B.10.016 subsection (2)
notes that the university is a postsecondary educational institution and is s pecifically classified as a “regional university ” under that provision. More directly, when the legislature enacted Title 28A RCW “common school provisions” in 1969, it expressly defined “public schools” as “the common schools as referred to in Article IX of the state Constitution, charter schools established under chapter 28A.710 RCW, and those schools and institutions of learning having a curriculum below the college or university level as now or may be established by law and maintained at public expense.” 48 We may look to the only statute defining “public schools” even though not contained in nor referenced by the PRA. 49 Even if we deem the term “public schools” ambiguous, the r ules of construction do not favor the s tudents ’ perspective because the history surrounding the use of the term “public schools” is narrow and limited. Specifically, a rticle 9,

48 L AWS OF 1969 , 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 223, § 28A.01.055.
49 In Cornu

- Labat v. Hospital Dist. No. 2 Grant County , our Supreme Court resolved the plain meaning of “peer review committee” in the PRA by referencing a statute unrelated to the PRA. 177 Wn.2d 221, 230

- 31, 298 P.3d 741 (2013). The court noted that the PRA provision referenced another statute, RCW 4.24.250 , as involving a “peer review committee” but the referenced section did not define the term. Id. In ascertaining the plain meani ng of “peer review committee , ” the court used the “only statute ” to define “peer revie w committee,” RCW 7.71.030, even though that definition was not contained in nor referenced by the PRA. Id. Using Title 7 RCW , the court held that because the definition of “peer review committee” as used in RCW 42.56.360 included nonphysicians, the records were exempt from disclosure under the PRA

. Id. at 231

- 32, 234.No. 82418

- 0

- I/ 15

15

section 2 of the Washington Constitution states, “The L egislature shall provid e for a general and uniform system of public schools. The public school system shall include common schools, and such high schools, normal schools, and technical schools as may hereafter be established.” 50 And based upon a rticle 9, section 4 of
the Washin gton Constitution, our Supreme Court held in Gallwey v. Grimm that “universities” are not common “schools.” 51
W hen the electorate adopted and the legislature codified Initiative 276 in 1973,
the “ student file ” exemption was one of few exemptions expressl y included. 52 The very little “history” that exists for Initiative 276 does not include any express references to the intended meaning of “ public schools” as used in the “ student file ” exemption. 53 But the related statutes in existence in 1973 expressly de fined “public schools” to exclude colleges and universities.

50 W ASH

. C ONST

. art. IV, § 2; Litchman v. Shannon , 90 Wash. 186, 186

- 88, 155 P. 783 (1916).

51 146 Wn.2d 455, 466, 48 P.3d 274 (2002).
52 Initiative 276, L AWS OF 1973, ch. 1, § 31(1)(a).
53 Voter p amphlet entries may provide “history” used to construe initiative provisions, see Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State , 142 Wn.2d 1 83, 205

- 06, 11 P.3d 762 (2000), but none is present here regarding the student file exemption. See Initiative 276, L AWS OF 1973, ch. 1, § 31(1)(a). Further, in a recent non

- PRA decision, our Supreme Court noted that Washington Pattern Jury Instruction 50.62 defines “school” as “a school or institution of learning having a curriculum below the college or university level as established by law and mai ntained at public expense. The term ‘school’ also means a school maintained at public expense in a school district and carrying on a program from kindergarten through the twelfth grade, or any part thereof, including vocational education courses.” (citing 11 W ASHINGTON P RACTICE : W ASHINGTON P ATTERN J URY I NSTRUCTIONS : C RIMINAL 50.62, at 1177 (4th ed. 2016)). And the court also acknowledged that “public school” is defined in RCW 28A.150.010. State v. Anderson , No. 98973

- 7, slip op. at 5, 11 (Wash. Nov. 18, 2021), http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions /pdf/989737.pdf.No. 82418

- 0

- I/ 16

16

Therefore, under either the plain meaning , or the rules of construction applicable to resolve any ambiguity, the term “public schools” in the student file exemption only contemplates schools below the college and university level. The unredacted disciplinary results are not exempt from disc losure under the

“ student file ” exemption of RCW 42.56.230 (1). II. Other Statute Exemption

“ The ‘ other statute’ exemption ‘ appl ies only to those exemptions explicitly identified in other statutes; its l anguage does not allow a court to imply exemptions but only allows specific exemptions to stand.’” 54 Where an exemption is not found in the PRA itself, we will find an “ other statut e ” exemption “only when the legislature has made it explicitly clear that a specific record, or portions of it, is exempt or otherwise prohibited from production in response to a public records request.” 55 In Doe ex rel Roe v. Washington State Patrol , our Supreme Court stated, “ O ur review of Washington case law shows that courts consistently find a statute to be an ‘other statute’ when the plain language of the statute makes it clear that a record, or portions thereof , is exempt from production.” 56 First, the students rely upon FERPA as an “other statute ” exemption. “Federal education funding is often conditional on the institution ’ s compliance with federal

54 Doe ex rel. Roe v. Washington State Patrol , 185 Wn.2d 363, 372, 374 P.3d 63 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quo ting P rogressive Animal Welfare Soc. v

. Univ. of Wash

. , 125 Wn.2d 243, 262, 884 P.2d 592 (1994)).

55 Id. at 373.
56 185 Wn.2d 363, 375, 374 P.3d 63 (2016).No. 82418

- 0

- I/ 17

17

laws, including FERPA.” 57 Here, the university receives federal funding. 58 Generally, “FERPA restric ts school disclosure of students’ education records and personally identifiable information.” 59 And “FERPA is an ‘other statute’ [under the PRA] if it expressly exempts the relevant records from disclosure.” 60 But the j ournalists and the university argue that an amendment to FERPA known as the “final results exception ” expressly permits certain records of violent or sex offenses to be released to anyone. 61 The “final results exception, ” 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(6)(B), provides: Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an institution of postsecondary education from disclosing the final results of any disciplinary proceeding conducted by such institution against a student who is an alleged perpetrator of any crime of violence (as that term is define d in section 16 of Title 18), or a nonforcible sex offense, if the institution determines as a result of that disciplinary proceeding that the student committed a violation of the institution’s rules or policies with respect to such crime or offense.
Here , the university’s code of conduct states, “ T he purpose of this student records policy is to establish rules and procedures t hat appropriately implement [FERPA]. ” 62 The university’s p ublic r ecords o fficer, Dolapo Akinrinade, after verifying

57 West v. TESC B d. of Tr s. , 3 Wn. App. 2d 11 2, 114

- 15, 414 P.3d 614 (2018) (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1232(g); 34 C.F.R. pt. 99).

58 Id. at 114.
59 Id. (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1232(g)).
60 Id. at 119; Ameriquest Mort. Co. v. Office of Atty. Gen., 170 Wn.2d 418, 439

- 40, 241 P.3d 1245 (2010).

61 Br. of Resp ’ ts Baxter et al. at 8; B r

. of Resp ’ t Western Washington University at 10.
62 CP at 159; WAC 516

- 26

- 010.No. 82418

- 0

- I/ 18

18

which student v iolations of the university’s code of conduct qualified under the final results exception, contacted the university’s a ssociate d ean, Michael Sledge, who “again reviewed the records to re

- verify that the underlying behavior fell for each
student at issue . . . within the definitions of a crime of violence or nonforcible sexual offense as set forth in 34 CFR 99.39.” 63 After confirming that each student’s conduct fell within the definition of a “crime of violence” or “nonforcible sexual offense” prohibited un der the university’s student code of conduct, Akinrinade and Sledge concluded that the unredacted disciplinary results were s ubject to disclosure under
the “ final results exception. ” Stated another way, the jou rnalists and the university
contend the unredacted disciplinary results are not exempted from disclosure under FERPA, even though FERPA generally is an “other statute” for p urposes of the PRA. We agree. In response, the s tudents argue that the “ final results exception ” is unconstitutionally vague because the terms “crime of violence” and “nonforcible sex offense” are insufficiently defined and , co nsistent with due process, the s tudents may prevent the release of their disciplinary records. In the criminal context, a statute is unconstituti onally vague if it “‘does not define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is proscribed’” or it “‘does not provide ascertainable

63 CP at 220, 240.No. 82418

- 0

- I/ 19

19

standards of guilt to protect against arbitrary enforcement.’” 64 “When determining whether a statute provides fair warning of the proscribed conduct, we examine the context of the entire enactment, giving the language a “‘sensible, meaningful, and practical interpretation.’” 65 In King County Department of Adult and Juve nile
Detention v. Parmelee , in rejecting a constitutional vagueness challenge to the PRA, the Court of Appeals noted that “absolute specificity” of the terms used in a statute is not required

. 66 The court stated that “‘ a statute is not unconstitutionally v ague merely because a person cannot predict with complete certainty the exact point at which his actions would be classified as prohibited conduct. ’ ” 67
The s tudents acknowledge that “[t]he degree of vagueness the Constitution tolerates . . . depends in part on the nature of the enactment.” 68 In support of their assertion that 1232g(b)(6)(B) is unconstitutionally vague, the s tudents cite to Johnson v. United States 69 and Sessions v. Dimaya

. 70 In Johnson , the United States Supreme Court held that the residual clause in the definition of “violent felony” as

64 King C ounty Dep’ t of Adult & Juvenile Det. v. Parmelee , 162 Wn. App. 337, 355, 254 P.3d 927 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Williams , 144 Wn.2d 197, 203, 26 P.3d 890 (2001))

.

65 Id. (quoting City of Spokane v. Douglass , 115 Wn.2d 171, 180, 795 P.2d 693 (1990) )

.

66 162 Wn. App. 337, 355

- 56, 254 P.3d 927 (2011) (citing City of Spokane , 115 Wn.2d at 179)

.

67 Id. ( quoting City of Seattle v. Eze , 111 Wn.2d 22, 27, 759 P.2d 366 (1988)).
68 B r. of A ppellants at 26.
69 576 U.S. 591, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 192 L. Ed. 2d 569 (2015).
70 138 S. Ct. 1204, 200 L. Ed. 2d 549 (2018).No. 82418

- 0

- I/ 20

20

defined in the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague because in deciding whether a specific crime qualified as a “violent felony , ” the court had “to picture the kind of conduct that the crime involve[d] in ‘the ordinary case,’ and to judge whether that abstraction present[ed] a serious potential risk of physical injury.” 71 Similarly , in Dimaya , the United States Supreme Court held that the definition of “aggravated felony” in the Immi gration and Nationality Act which included a “crime of violence” as defined in 18 U.S.C. §16(b) was unconstitutionally vague because it also required the court to “picture” a criminal offense in which “the particular facts” demonstrated “a substantial risk that physical force ” was involved in committing the offense. 72 But unlike the statutes at issue under the facts of Johnson
and Dimaya , FERPA and the PRA do not similarly require the court “to picture” the criminal offenses that violate them. W e can consi der other parts of the statutory scheme, 73 including the federal regulations 74 governing the FERPA “ final result s

71 Johnson , 576 U.S. at 596

- 97. The residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act provided that a “violent felony” was “burglary, arson, or extortion , involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” Id. at 594.

72 Dimaya , 138 S. Ct. at 1211, 1216. The residual clause of 18 U.S.C. §16(b) provides “any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” Dimaya , 138 S. Ct. at 1211; 18 U.S.C. §16(b).

73 King County Dep’t of Adult & Juvenile Det. , 162 Wn. App. at 355

- 57.
74 See West , 3 Wn. App. 2 d at 120, 123 ( Division Two of this court used the Code of Federal Regulations to interpret FERPA , noting that FERPA restricts disclosure of “‘personally identifiable information cont ained [in education records] other than directory information’” pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(2), and that 34 C.F.R. § 99.3 further defines “education records” and “personally identifiable information.”).No. 82418

- 0

- I/ 21

21

exception. ” Those regulations expressly and in plain language def ine the crimes that qualify as crimes of violence and nonforcible sex offenses for purposes of the “ final results exception. ” For example, one crime of violence under the federal reg ulations is burglary. “Burglary” is defined in the regulations as “ [t] he unlawful entry into a building or other structure with the intent to commit a felony or theft.” 75 A nd a crime that qualifies as a nonforcible sex offense under the federal regulati ons is i ncest. “Incest” is defined in the regulations as “[n] onforcible sexual intercourse between persons who are related to each other within the degr ees wherein marriage is prohibited by law.” 76 Taken together, these definitions provide an ordinary person with a “sensible, meaningful, and practical interpretation” 77 of the types of crimes that , if committed , constitute a crime of violence or nonforcible sex offense and can be subject to public
disclosure under the “ final results exception.” Therefore, when we examine the context of the entire PRA and the “ final results exception ” in FERP A and give the language used a sensible, meaningf ul and
p ractical interpretation, we conclude the “ final results exception ” to FERPA provides fair warning of the offenses that , if commi tted, could be disclosed. The s tud ents do
not establish that the “ final results exception ” is unconstitutionally vague.

75 34 C.F.R. § 99, a pp. A. The other crimes of violence listed and defined in the regulation include arson, assault offenses, criminal homicide, vandalism of property, kidnapping/abduction, and robbery.

76 Id. The other crime of nonforcible sex offense listed and defined in the regulation is statutory rape.

77 King County Dep’t of Adult & Juvenile Det. , 162 Wn. App. at 355.No. 82418

- 0

- I/ 22

22

In the alternative, the s tudents contend that the unredacted disciplinary results are exempt from public disclos ure under the “ other statute ” provision of RCW 42.56.070(1) because the university’s student code of conduct

— in particular, WAC 516

- 21

- 310(1) and WAC 5 16

- 26

- 070

— constitute an “ other statute ” and “prohibit disclosure of a student’s personally identifying information to the public.” 78 WAC 516

- 26

- 070 provides, “The university shall not permit access to or release of a student’s education records or personally identifiable information contained therein to any person without the written consent of the student.” 79 But WAC 516

- 21

- 310(1) states that conduct proceedings and records will remain confidential “in compliance with the student records policy. Conduct records . . . [ w ] ill not be shared with any member of the public, except under the informed written consent of the student(s) involved or as stated in the student records pol icy, or as required by law or court order.” 80 In support of their assertion , the s tudents argue White v. Clark County 81 holds that WAC provision s standing alone can create an “ other statute” under the PRA.
But the s tudents ’ argument is misguided. In White , the parties disputed the appropriate format for th e results of a PRA request for copies of electronic or digital image files of all pre tabulated ballots in the 2013 general election. 82

78 Br

. of Appellants at 21.
79 CP at 161.
80 CP at 157 (emphasis added)

. 81 188 Wn. App. 622, 354 P.3d 38 (2015).
82 White , 188 Wn. App. at 627

- 28.No. 82418

- 0

- I/ 23

23

Division Two of this court held that the “ballot images” were exempt u nder the

“ other statute ” exemption of the PRA. 83 The court reasoned that under the facts of
White , the “ other statute ” exemption “derives from a combination of article VI, section 6 of the Washington Constitution, multiple sections of Title 29A RCW, and secretary of state regulations authorized by statute.” 84 Contrary to the s tudents ’ contention,
White does not hold that WAC regula tions alone can constitute an “other statute.” And the view advocated by the s tudents would allow an agency to adopt broad exemptions never contemplated by the legislature. Unlike the WAC provisions at issue in White , WAC 516

- 26

- 070 and WAC 516

- 21

- 310(1) are not derived from any particular article of the Washington Constitution

or multiple sections of the RCW. We conclude that these WAC regulations do not constitute an “other statute” under section .070 (1) where there is no corresponding
and related stat utory provision, making it clear that the unredacted disciplinary results are exempt from disclosure. And, consistent with WAC 516

- 21

- 310(1), PRA disclosure requirements are “required by law.” 85

83 Id. at 636

- 37.
84 Id. at 631.
85 The students contend the WAC 516

- 21

- 310(1) provision that “conduct proceedings and records” are exempt from public disclosure except as “required by law” is limited to subpoenas and discovery requests, but we find no authority for such a limited view.No. 82418

- 0

- I/ 24

24

III

. Lack of Notice
The s tudents argue that they “had no notice that the results of [ their ] disciplinary proceeding[s] might be released to the public.” 86 In s upport of their assertion, the s tudents cite to Krakauer v. State , 87 a Montana case which held that the student’s expectati on of privacy in his educational records outweighed the public’s right to know the contents of his records because Montana’s student code of conduct did not provide the student with adequate notice that his records could be disclosed. But in its decision, the Montana Supreme Court recognized that the exceptions to FERPA can provide adequate notice. 88 Here, the university’s student code of conduct contains multiple provisions notifying students that in some circumstances student records can be released to the public. For example, WAC 516

- 2 6

- 010(2) provides that “[t]he u niversity will normally not permit access to the public without a student’s permission; some exceptions exist as detailed in this policy.” Additionally, WAC 516

- 26

- 100 requires the university to “annually notify students currently in attendance” of certain right s that each student
has under the FERPA . And as noted above, WAC 516

- 21

- 310(1) expressly provides for disclosure “as required by law.” We conclude that the university provided the

s tudents with adequate notice that their records could be disclosed.

86 Br. of A ppellants at 31

- 32

. 87 396 Mont. 247, 256, 445 P.3d 201 (2019).
88 Id. at 255

- 56 ( “If the person had notice his records were subject to public disclosure or the public entity already made them publicly available, then he cannot have an actual or sub jective expectation of privacy in the records.” ).No. 82418

- 0

- I/ 25

25 CONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s decision that the unredacted disciplinary results are not exempt from disclosure under the PRA “ student file ” exemption or under the

“ other statute ” exemption. The students do not establish a n actionable lack of notice. Therefore, we affirm the trial court order req uiring the university to disclose the unredacted disciplinary results.

WE CONCUR: