Opinion ID: 4517863
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The county clerk serves a dual role

Text: In the majority of counties in our state, including Franklin and Benton, the people elect the county clerk, WASH. ConsT. art. XI, § 5. That elected official, by virtue of being county clerk, also serves as clerk of the superior court. WASH. CONST. art. IV, § 26. Thus, although the county clerk serves a role within the judicial branch, the clerk is also a separately elected official who serves a role outside the judicial branch. This dual role puts county clerks such as Clerk Killian in a unique position. When acting as clerk of the superior court, Clerk Killian largely lacks autonomy and must follow the court’s rules. See Riddle I, 189 Wn.2d at 583 (explaining that the superior court clerk essentially serves a ministerial role) (citing Swanson v. Olympic Peninsula Motor Coach Co., 190 Wash. 35, 38, 66 P.2d 842 (1937)). But Judges of Benton and Franklin Counties v, Killian, No. 96821-7 when acting as county clerk, Clerk Killian is independent from the court and accountable to the people. See WASH. CONST. art. XI, § 5 (providing for an elected county clerk to serve as part of county government). Our constitution does not define the duties of either the county clerk or the clerk of the superior court. See WASH. CONST. art. XI, § 5, art. IV, § 26. The duties of the superior court clerk “are defined both by statute and court rules.” Riddle 1, 189 Wn.2d at 583 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Swanson, 190 Wash. at 38). The duties of the county clerk are defined by statute. See WASH. CONST. art. XI, § 5 (delegating the task of defining the county clerk’s duties to the legislature). The two roles often overlap, and it is not always obvious whether the elected clerk is acting as county clerk or as superior court clerk. Cf Hale v. Wellpinit Sch. Dist. No. 49, 165 Wn.2d 494, 504, 198 P.3d 1021 (2009) (recognizing that the separate branches of government are “partially intertwined” and not “‘hermetically sealed off from one another’” (quoting Carrick v. Locke, 125 Wn.2d 129, 135, 882 P.2d 173 (1994))). This is particularly true when it comes to court documents. What is clear is the need for cooperation between the superior court and the county clerk. See GR 29(f) cmt. (noting the autonomy of the county clerk and instructing the superior court to “communicate to the county clerk any concerns regarding the performance of statutory court duties by county clerk personnel”); cf. Hale, 165 Wn.2d at 507 (“The art of good government requires cooperation and 10 Judges of Benton and Franklin Counties v. Killian, No. 96821-7 flexibility among the branches,”); Zylstra v. Piva, 85 Wn.2d 743, 750, 539 P.2d 823 (1975) (“Harmonious cooperation among the three branches is fundamental to our system of government.”). Unfortunately, this cooperation occasionally breaks down and we are forced to step in. Brown v. Owen, 165 Wn.2d 706, 721, 206 P.3d 310 (2009) (“[W]e will reluctantly act as impartial referee between branches of government in order to maintain a constitutional balance between them.” (citing Wash. State Legislature vy. State, 139 Wn.2d 129, 137, 139, 985 P.2d 353 (1999))), B. When it comes to in-court duties, the elected clerk acts in the role of superior court clerk and must follow court rules This is not the first dispute to reach our court over the scope of an elected clerk’s powers. In Riddle I, petitioners sought to recall the clerk of Yakima County in part because she “refused to perform in-court duties.” 189 Wn.2d at 568. For example, the clerk refused to operate the court’s electronic recording equipment and to provide copies of recordings upon request. Jd. at 579. After the clerk’s initial refusal, the superior court passed a local rule that “‘describe[d] actual current courtroom procedures and the responsibilities of the Clerk of the Court while in court.’” Id. at 579-80 (emphasis added) (quoting YAKIMA COUNTY SUPER. CT. LOCAL ADMIN. R. 3). The clerk did not budge—and even threatened to close her office so as to force the court to shut down. Jd. at 580. 11 Judges of Benton and Franklin Counties v. Killian, No. 96821-7 The clerk argued that “she had no obligation to perform in-court duties.” Jd. at 582. We acknowledged that the clerk “retain[ed] authority over the clerk’s office.” Jd. at 583. But we explained that the clerk had to perform in-court duties and follow the court’s rules in her role as clerk of the superior court. Id. (“[A] court does have the authority to direct the functions of the clerk when he or she is acting in his or her capacity as clerk of the superior court.”); see also RCW 2.32.050(9) (stating that superior court clerks must conform to the direction of the court). Since the duties at issue affected the operation of the court, we held that the clerk “ha[d] no legally justifiable excuse for refusing to follow [the court rule].” Riddle 1, 189 Wn.2d at 584. Here, we must determine whether the maintenance of court documents is an in-court duty. Ifit is, then Riddle I controls and the superior court may instruct the clerk to maintain paper files. If it’s not, then the county clerk may choose whether to maintain paper files or electronic files and the judges may not interfere with the clerk’s discretion. C. The maintenance of court documents is not an in-court duty Here, the superior court reasoned that the county clerk acts as superior court clerk “whenever the word ‘court’ is mentioned,” and since LGR 3 involves the maintenance of court documents, Clerk Killian had to listen to the judges. CP at 234. To be sure, in addition to the in-court duties described in Riddle I, the clerk 12 Judges of Benton and Franklin Counties v. Killian, No. 96821-7 has many other in-court duties, several of which involve court documents. See, e.g., RCW 2.32.050(6) (stating that the clerk must “enter [the court’s] orders, judgments, and decrees”); GR 15(c)(4) (“When the clerk receives a court order to seal the entire court file, the clerk shall seal the court file and secure it from public access.”); GR 30(c)(2) (“The clerk shall issue confirmation to the filing party that an electronic document has been received.”); AR 5 (“The clerk shall provide [information contained in the criminal judgment and docket records of the superior court clerk] to the Department of Corrections.”), And we have explained that “court case files are within the province of the judiciary,” Nast v. Michels, 107 Wn.2d 300, 306, 730 P.2d 54 (1986), and that “[c]ourts have the inherent authority to control their records and proceedings,” Cowles Publ’g Co, v. Murphy, 96 Wn.2d 584, 588, 637 P.2d 966 (1981) (citing Nixon v. Warner Comme ’ns, Inc., 435 US. 589, 98S. Ct. 1306, 55 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1978); In re Sealed Affidavit(s) to Search Warrants, 600 F.2d 1256 (9th Cir. 1979) (per curiam)). We guard against improper encroachment by the executive and legislative branches into areas within the judiciary’s province. Hagen & Van Camp v. Kassler Escrow, Inc., 96 Wn.2d 443, 453, 635 P.2d 730 (1981). “However, the separation of powers doctrine allows for some interplay between the branches of government.” State v. Chavez, 163 Wn.2d 262, 273, 180 P.3d 1250 (2008) (citing Spokane County v. State, 136 Wn.2d 663, 672, 966 P.2d (13 Judges of Benton and Franklin Counties v. Killian, No. 96821-7 314 (1998)). At the superior court level, the clerk is elected to a constitutional position that exists outside the judicial branch. WASH. CONST, art. XL § 5. The legislature defines the duties of that position, id., and has included several responsibilities involving court documents. For instance, the county clerk is “responsible for the safe custody ... of all books and papers belonging to his or her office.” RCW 36.23.040. Those books and papers in part consist of court documents. See RCW 2.32.050(3) (stating that the clerk must “keep the records, files, and other books and papers appertaining to the court”); see also RCW 36.23.030 (listing various records to be kept by the clerk).! Although the clerk must keep court documents safe, he or she does not have to keep safe the original documents. The clerk may destroy the original documents “in any action or proceeding in the superior court,” so long as he or she maintains a copy in some format, such as electronic. RCW 36.23.065.,  Pursuant to RCW 2.32.050(4), the superior court clerk must “file all papers delivered to him or her for that purpose in any action or proceeding in the court as directed by court rule or statute.” In 2001, our attorney general opined that this statute would allow a superior court to create a local rule requiring the county clerk to file court documents within a specified length of time. 2001 Op. of the Att’y Gen. No. 6 (https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/authority-superior-court-impose-filing-deadlinecounty-clerk), First of all, we note that the timing of a filing is much more likely to affect judicial operations than is the format in which a filing is maintained. Second, the attorney general opinion states that “the status of the clerk as an elected officer . . . might be relevant for other reasons in other contexts.” Jd. This is one of those other contexts where that status is not only relevant, it is dispositive. 14 Judges of Benton and Franklin Counties v. Killian, No, 96821-7 Notably, that statute does not require the clerk to obtain permission from the court before destroying the original documents and maintaining electronic copies. See id. When it comes to court exhibits, however, the clerk does need permission from the court. See RCW 36,23.070 (allowing the clerk to destroy exhibits only after the superior court signs and enters an authorizing order). We presume a difference in legislative intent when the legislature “uses certain language in one instance but different, dissimilar language in another.” Millay v. Cam, 135 Wn.2d 193, 202, 955 P.2d 791 (1998) (citing United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 102 Wn.2d 355, 362, 687 P.2d 186 (1984)). Here, in direct conflict with the legislatively defined role of the county clerk, the judges of Benton and Franklin Counties have instructed, via LGR 3, the county clerks to “keep and maintain paper files for all cases and file types.” CP at 32-33. That rule expressly bars the clerks from going paperless until the judges approve the move in writing. CP at 33. In effect, the judges have taken away the county clerks’ independent discretion and authority and given it to themselves. The judges cannot do this. See State ex rel. Gordon v. Superior Court, 3 Wash. 702, 704-05, 29 P, 204 (1892) (explaining that the court may not interfere with the clerk’s independent statutory discretion). That is particularly true here, where the clerk’s duty to maintain the superior court’s records was constitutionally delegated to the legislature and then 15 Judges of Benton and Franklin Counties v. Killian, No. 96821-7 specifically assigned by that body. See WASH. CONST. art. XI, § 5 (delegating the task of defining the county clerk’s duties to the legislature); RCW 36.23.040 (stating that the county clerk is responsible for the safekeeping of records), .065 (allowing the county clerk to maintain documents in electronic form), Although the judges may create local rules, WASH. CONST. art. IV, § 24, those rules may not interfere with the core functions of the county clerk, cf State v. Rice, 174 Wn.2d 884, 905, 279 P.3d 849 (2012) (explaining that the legislature cannot interfere with the “core functions” of prosecuting attorneys); Chavez, 163 Wn.2d at 273 (explaining that “the activity of one branch” cannot “threaten[] the independence or integrity or invade[] the prerogatives of another branch” (citing Spokane County, 136 Wn.2d at 667)). Of course, the county clerk may not refuse to provide court documents to the judges upon request or threaten to shut down the court. Riddle I, 189 Wn.2d at 579-80. But the county clerk may choose the open, accessible format in which to safely and accessibly maintain court documents. Here, Clerk Killian plans to maintain the documents electronically, and he has stated an intent to provide the judges with paper copies upon request. CP at 121-22. Not only is that plan reasonable, it is also permissible under our constitution and statutes. The decision to maintain documents electronically is Clerk Killian’s to make in his role as the 16 Judges of Benton and Franklin Counties v. Killian, No. 96821-7 elected county clerk, and the judges may not usurp the clerk’s discretion by ordering him to maintain paper files instead.
The judges ask for attorney fees. “A party is entitled to attorney fees on appeal if'a contract, statute, or recognized ground of equity permits recovery of attorney fees at trial and the party substantially prevails.” In re Appointment of Special Deputy Prosecuting Att'y, 193 Wn.2d 777, 791, 446 P.3d 160 (2019) (citing Hwang v. MeMahill, 103 Wn. App. 945, 954, 15 P.3d 172 (2000)). Because the judges have not prevailed, we deny their request-for attorney fees.