Opinion ID: 2621285
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the District Court Err in Ordering the Hospital to Release the Names of the Employees?

Text: An interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which we exercise free review. Lopez v. State, Industrial Special Indemnity Fund, 136 Idaho 174, 30 P.3d 952 (2001). If the statutory language is unambiguous, we merely apply the statute as written. Id. If it is ambiguous, then we attempt to ascertain the legislative intent. Id. When doing so, we may examine the language used, the reasonableness of proposed interpretations, and the policy behind the statute. Id. As a general rule, every public record is open for inspection and copying unless the record is expressly exempted from disclosure by statute. The presumption is that the record is available for inspection and copying. As provided by Idaho Code § 9-338(1) (1998): Every person has a right to examine and take a copy of any public record of this state and there is a presumption that all public records in Idaho are open at all reasonable times for inspection except as otherwise expressly provided by statute. The parties agree that the Hospital is a public agency [1] and that its records are public records. [2] At issue in this case is the scope of the exemptions from disclosure provided by Idaho Code § 9-340C(1) (2002 Supp.), which provides: The following records are exempt from disclosure: (1) Except as provided in this subsection, all personnel records of a current or former public official other than the public official's public service or employment history, classification, pay grade and step, longevity, gross salary and salary history, status, workplace and employing agency. All other personnel information relating to a public employee or applicant including, but not limited to, information regarding sex, race, marital status, birth date, home address and telephone number, applications, testing and scoring materials, grievances, correspondence and performance evaluations, shall not be disclosed to the public without the employee's or applicant's written consent. A public official or authorized representative may inspect and copy his personnel records, except for material used to screen and test for employment. Under Idaho Code § 9-340C(1), personnel records showing a public official's [3] public service or employment history, classification, pay grade and step, longevity, gross salary and salary history, status, workplace and employing agency are not exempt from disclosure. All other personnel information relating to a public employee is exempt from disclosure unless the employee gives written consent to the disclosure. The Hospital admits that if a request were made to examine records showing the gross salary of a particular named employee, it would be required to honor that request. It argues, however, that if the requesting party does not know the name of the employee, then it cannot disclose that name without the employee's written consent. According to the Hospital, an employee's name is included within other personnel information that is exempt from disclosure. The Time-News contends that it is not. Thus, the issue is whether names of public employees are exempt from disclosure when those names are connected with information regarding the employees' gross salary. Idaho Code § 9-340C(1) does not expressly state whether or not employees' names are exempt from disclosure. As stated, however, by Justice Schroeder in his dissent in Federated Publications, Inc. v. Boise City, 128 Idaho 459, 465, 915 P.2d 21, 27 (1996), For personnel information that is subject to disclosure to have any meaning at all, the name of the involved officials and applicants also must be disclosed. His reasoning is persuasive. We conclude that had the legislature intended to exempt employees' names from disclosure, it would have expressly so provided. The Hospital urges us to adopt a balancing test to determine whether or not its employees' names are exempt from disclosure. It bases this argument upon Idaho Code § 9-340A(1) (1998), which exempts from disclosure [a]ny public record exempt from disclosure by federal or state law or federal regulations to the extent specifically provided for by such law or regulation. The Hospital points out that under the federal Freedom of Information Act (herein FOIA), personnel records are exempt from disclosure if disclosure ... would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). It then states, The Hospital asks this Court to consider the personnel file exemption under FOIA, either directly through applying I.C. § 9-340A(1), or indirectly as guidance in interpreting Idaho's personnel records exemption. The FOIA does not apply directly to this case. Idaho Code § 9-340A(1) does not incorporate into Idaho's public records law all provisions of federal law or regulations regarding the disclosure of public records. It only provides that if a federal law or regulation specifically exempts from disclosure a record prepared, owned, used or retained by a state or local agency, then the record is also exempt from disclosure under Idaho Code § 9-340A(1). The FOIA only governs the disclosure of public information by authorities of the Government of the United States. 5 U.S.C. § 551(1). It does not purport to govern disclosure of information by state agencies. Thus, the requested records are not exempt from disclosure under the FOIA. The FOIA also cannot be applied indirectly as guidance in interpreting Idaho's personnel records exemption. When enacting laws governing the disclosure of public records, the Idaho legislature certainly could have included a provision, similar to that in the FOIA, that exempts from disclosure records that would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The legislature did not choose to do so, however, and we do not have the authority to rewrite the statute to include such a provision. See Idaho State Tax Comm'n v. Stang, 135 Idaho 800, 25 P.3d 113 (2001).