Opinion ID: 2618880
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The University's Status as an Agency Within The Meaning of AS 09.25.110.

Text: Given our conclusion that the legislature constitutionally may require the University to disclose its records upon public request, we must address the question of whether AS 09.25.110-.120 was intended to apply to the University. We recently considered the question of the type of entities subject to the public records disclosure enactment in City of Kenai v. Kenai Peninsula Newspapers, Inc., 642 P.2d 1316 (Alaska 1982). There we held that municipalities were subject to the disclosure requirements of AS 09.25.110. Id. at 1323. Because many of the arguments raised by the University in this appeal were rejected in the Kenai case, we deem Kenai controlling authority here. In contending that it is not an agency or department of the state for purposes of the public records disclosure statute, the University presents an argument similar to that raised earlier by the City of Kenai. [9] In Kenai, we rejected the argument, finding that the determinative adjective in AS 09.25.110-.120 limiting the scope of the statute was the word public. [10] The conclusion was reached after extensive reference to the historical context and legislative history of AS 09.25.110-.120, as well as an examination of the plain meaning of statutory language. We found that in enacting the present public records law, the legislature had no intention of altering the common law rule that every interested person was entitled to the inspection of public records. At most, the legislature that first codified this public right intended to expand upon common law prerogatives by eliminating the requirement that the person seeking inspection have an interest. [11] Thus, providing the records were kept by a public entity, they were subject to disclosure under the law. [12] Legislative enactments support a conclusion that the University is generally deemed a public entity. Of particular significance is the fact that the legislature specifically defined public employees to include University personnel in AS 39.51.020(b), the statutory provision prohibiting the state from taking disciplinary action against any public employee releasing information pursuant to AS 09.25.110-.120. [13] Kenai held that because AS 39.51.020(b) protected municipal employees disclosing information pursuant to AS 09.25.110-.120, the public records statute must have been intended to encompass municipalities. The majority in Kenai rejected the cities' argument that AS 39.51.020(b) specifically mentioned municipal employees not because the public records statute applied to local governments but because local government employees often come into possession of state records which are public and may wish to allow the inspection of these records and need protection from discipline by their employers in so doing. We find this to be a very strained and unnatural reading of the statute. It is far more logical to conclude that the 1977 legislature assumed that §§ .110 and.120 apply to municipalities as well as to the state and concluded that municipal as well as state employees were deserving of protection. [14] The University raises the same argument here, distinguishing Kenai on the ground that the 1977 legislature which enacted AS 39.51.020 was particularly aware of the University's unique status, having amended AS 37.05.320(2) to include the University as a state agency under the Fiscal Procedures Act, AS 37.05.010 et seq., and thus that it would have amended AS 09.25.110-.120 to include the University if it had intended to do so. In our view, this argument lacks merit. Kenai supports the APEA's position that inclusion of the University's employees in AS 39.51.020 implies that the University is encompassed within AS 09.25.110-.120. [15] On the basis of the foregoing we conclude that the legislature intended to include the University within the scope of state agencies subject to the public records statute. Under the Kenai balancing test, the policies weighing in favor of permitting access to public records may be furthered without undermining the need to preserve the confidentiality of particular documents. In short, there are no compelling reasons against finding the University included within the ambit of governmental institutions which are subject to the provisions of AS 09.25.110.