Opinion ID: 4579681
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the information is released to a governmental

Text: body, including the state’s area agencies on aging, and the recipient agrees to protect the confidentiality of the information; (b) the information concerns individuals who have been accused of or disciplined for abuse, neglect, exploitation, abandonment, or other acts involving the victimization of individuals or other professional misconduct; (c) the information is being released as part of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding and subject to a court’s order protecting the confidentiality of the information and allowing it to be used solely in that proceeding; (d) the information is being provided to a representative certified or recognized under RCW 41.56.080, or as necessary for the provision of fringe benefits to public employees, and the recipient agrees to protect the confidentiality of the information; (e) the disclosure is required by federal law; (f) the disclosure is required by a contract between the state and a third party, and the recipient agrees to protect the confidentiality of the information; (g) the information is released to a person or entity under contract with the state to manage, administer, or provide services to vulnerable 14 BOARDMAN V. INSLEE Seniors and Vulnerable Individuals’ Safety and Financial Crimes Prevention Act, 2017 Wash. Legis. Serv., ch. 4, I.M. No. 1501, § 11(c), (e), (f) (West) (codified at Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.645(1)(c), (e), (f)). Information could also be lawfully disclosed if it were “being provided to a representative certified or recognized under [Wash. Rev. Code section] 41.56.080,” id. § 11(d) (codified at Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.645(1)(d)), which is an exclusive bargaining representative of a collective bargaining unit, Wash. Rev. Code § 41.56.080 (“The bargaining representative which has been determined to represent a majority of the employees in a bargaining unit shall be certified by the commission as the exclusive bargaining representative of, and shall be required to represent, all the public employees within the unit without regard to membership in said bargaining representative . . . .”).3 residents, or under contract with the state to engage in research or analysis about state services for vulnerable residents, and the recipient agrees to protect the confidentiality of the information; or (h) information about specific public employee(s) is released to a bona fide news organization that requests such information to conduct an investigation into, or report upon, the actions of such specific public employee(s). Seniors and Vulnerable Individuals’ Safety and Financial Crimes Prevention Act, 2017 Wash. Legis. Serv., ch. 4, I.M. No. 1501, § 11 (codified at Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.645(1)). 3 The Unions have had the ability to obtain access to Provider Information under this exception, because they are both currently “representative[s] certified or recognized under [Wash. Rev. Code section] 41.56.080.” See Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.645(1)(d). BOARDMAN V. INSLEE 15 Boardman, Thurber, and the Freedom Foundation were active in their opposition to Initiative 1501. Together, they prepared the “Argument Against” statement for the initiative in the “Voter’s Guide” to the 2016 election. In their statement, they alleged that the Unions drafted and supported Initiative 1501 “to prevent in-home caregivers and childcare providers from learning they no longer can be forced to pay dues to the union” and to “protect[] union bosses’ wallets.” “If Initiative 1501 passes,” they claimed, “caregivers will not even be able to contact each other to discuss issues of common concern.” The “Argument For” statement was prepared by two in-home care providers, an elder advocate, the King County Sheriff, and a representative of the Puget Sound Advocates for Retirement Action. They argued that Initiative 1501 would help prevent “fraudulent telemarketers” and “identity thieves” from “targeting seniors and the vulnerable.” The chief proponent of Initiative 1501 was the “Campaign to Prevent Fraud and Protect Seniors” (“Campaign”), a campaign committee registered with the State of Washington to “spearhead[] the campaign” in favor of the initiative. The Campaign was composed of “unions, advocates for seniors, public safety officials, and community groups.” Its literature was unequivocal in its support for Initiative 1501: “Groups like the Freedom Foundation are threatening unions. . . . Initiative 1501 will keep groups like the Freedom Foundation from getting our personal information. Vote yes on I-1501 to keep our unions strong and protect what we’ve fought for.” The Campaign received substantial contributions from the Unions. It was also chaired by SEIU 775’s secretarytreasurer. SEIU 775 echoed the Campaign’s support for Initiative 1501 in an email to its members: “There’s one more way you can fight to stop the Freedom Foundation: When you 16 BOARDMAN V. INSLEE get your ballot in the mail, vote YES on I-1501, which protects the private information of caregivers and our state’s most vulnerable.” In the final tally, nearly 71% of Washington voters supported the passage of Initiative 1501. The initiative took effect on December 8, 2016.