Opinion ID: 2584255
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Student File Exemption

Text: ¶ 6 The PDA requires state and local agencies to disclose all public records upon request, unless the record falls within a specific exemption. Former RCW 42.17.260(1) (1997). [3] An agency withholding public records bears the burden of proving the applicability of a statutory exemption. Former RCW 42.17.340(1). In determining whether the PDA requires disclosure, we must liberally construe its public records provisions and narrowly construe its exemptions. Former RCW 42.17.251 (1992). [4] ¶ 7 The parties do not dispute that the videotape is a public record and the District is an agency within the meaning of the PDA. Thus, the District must disclose the videotape unless a statutory exemption applies. The District refused the Lindemans' disclosure request under the student file exemption, which exempts from disclosure [p]ersonal information in any files maintained for students in public schools, patients or clients of public institutions or public health agencies, or welfare recipients. Former RCW 42.17.310(1)(a). ¶ 8 We fulfill the PDA's directive to construe the exemption narrowly by giving full effect to the words in the statute. Therefore, we must examine the meaning of personal information and in any files maintained for students. `This court has the ultimate authority to determine the meaning and purpose of a statute.' State v. Sullivan, 143 Wash.2d 162, 174, 19 P.3d 1012 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Alvarez, 128 Wash.2d 1, 11, 904 P.2d 754 (1995)). In the absence of a statutory definition, we may ascertain the plain and ordinary meaning of unambiguous statutory terms by resort to a dictionary. Id. at 175, 19 P.3d 1012. ¶ 9 The PDA does not define personal information. The dictionary provides several definitions of personal, including the following: of or relating to a particular person, affecting one individual or each of many individuals, peculiar or proper to private concerns, and not public or general. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1686 (2002). Mindful that the PDA requires exemptions to disclosure be construed narrowly, information peculiar or proper to private concerns constitutes personal information for purposes of the student file exemption, as are employee evaluations. Dawson v. Daly, 120 Wash.2d 782, 797, 845 P.2d 995 (1993). ¶ 10 Moreover, we disagree with the Court of Appeals' conclusion that personal information is not modified in any manner, suggesting that any and all personal information from agencies and institutions that fall under this subsection is exempt from public disclosure. Lindeman, 127 Wash.App. at 539-40, 111 P.3d 1235. The student file exemption does not exempt any and all personal informationit only exempts personal information in any files maintained for students in public schools. Former RCW 42.17.310(1)(a). Thus, we construe the student file exemption narrowly, in accordance with the directive of the PDA, by exempting information only when it is both personal and maintained for students. ¶ 11 The 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 exemption 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. See Weems v. N. Franklin Sch. Dist., 109 Wash.App. 767, 37 P.3d 354 (2002) (referring passim to student files and a student's file). ¶ 12 Here, the surveillance camera serves as a means of maintaining security and safety on the school buses. The videotape from the surveillance camera differs significantly from the type of record that schools maintain in students' personal files. Merely placing the videotape in a location designated as a student's file does not transform the videotape into a record maintained for students. As counsel for amici argued, [T]his tape is not in a file maintained for students. It's not a student record. It's a surveillance tape. They might have put it in the file (but we've heard that they didn't), but that would not, in and of itself, have covered it under the exemption. So it never should have been exempt in the first place. TVW, Washington State's Public Affairs Network, Wash. State Supreme Court oral argument, Lindeman v. Kelso Sch. Dist. No. 458, No. 77253-3 (Mar. 16, 2006), audio recording available at http://www.tvw.org (emphasis added). Even if the District 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. The District cannot change the inherent character of the record by simply placing the videotape in the student's file or by using the videotape as an evidentiary basis for disciplining the student. ¶ 13 Further undermining the credibility of any later claim that the videotape was a document maintained in the student's file is the fact that the District permitted the Lindemans to view the videotape on the evening of the incident. Were the videotape actually a record in the student's file, the District would have immediately recognized it as such and would not have shared it absent a court order or subpoena or the consent of the student's parent or guardian. See RCW 28A.605.030; RCW 28A.600.475; 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(2). ¶ 14 Even assuming arguendo that the videotape constituted personal information within the meaning of the student file exemption, the District failed to satisfy its burden of showing the videotape was in any files maintained for students. Thus, we conclude that the videotape was not, and could not have been, legally withheld as a student file document under former RCW 42.17.310(1)(a).