Opinion ID: 987107
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: conditional exemptions

Text: a. Conditional-Information Exemptions (certain types of information exempted insofar as identified privacy/governmental interests are implicated) 1. Personal information in files maintained for employees, appointees, or elected officials of any public agency to the extent that disclosure wquld violate their right to privacy .230(3) 2. Information required of any taxpayer in connection with the assessment or collection of any tax if the disclosure of the 41 Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority~ No. 87656-8 information to the other persons would ... violate the taxpayer's right to privacy or result in unfair competitive disadvantage to the taxpayer .23 0(4)(b) 3. Information revealing the identity of persons who are witnesses to or victims of crime or who file complaints with investigative, law enforcement, or penology agencies ... if disclosure would endanger any person's life, physical safety, or property .240(2) 4. Valuable formulae, designs, drawings, [code], and research data obtained by any agency within five years ... when disclosure would produce private gain and public loss .270(1) 5. Financial and commercial information supplied to the state investment board by any person when the information relates to the investment of public trust or retirement funds and when disclosure would result in loss to such funds or in private loss to the providers of this information .270(6) 6. Financial, commercial, operations, and technical and research information and data submitted to or obtained by the life sciences discovery fund authority in applications for, or delivery of, grants under chapter 43.350 RCW, to the extent that such information, if revealed, would reasonably be expected to result in private loss to the providers of this information .270(14) 7. Financial, commercial, operations, and technical and research information and data submitted to or obtained by a health sciences and services authority in applications for, or delivery of, grants under RCW 35.104.010 through 35.104.060, to the extent that such information, if revealed, would reasonably be expected to result in private loss to providers of this information .270(18) 8. Financial and commercial information submitted to or obtained by the University of Washington ... when the information relates to investments in private funds, to the extent that such information, if revealed, would reasonably be expected to result in loss to the University of Washington consolidated endowment fund or to result in private loss to the providers of this information .270(20) 9. Financial, commercial, operations, and technical and research information and data submitted to or obtained by innovate Washington in applications for, or delivery of, grants and loans under chapter 43.333 RCW, to the extent that such information, if 42 Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8 revealed, would reasonably be expected to result in private loss to the providers of this information .270(21) 10. Confidential proprietary and trade secret information provided to the commissioner under RCW 48.31 C.020 through 48.31 C.050 and 48.31 C.070 .400(9) 11. Those portions of records assembled, prepared, or maintained to prevent, mitigate, or respond to criminal terrorist acts, which are acts that significantly disrupt the conduct of government or of the general civilian population of the state or the United States and that manifest an extreme indifference to human life, the public disclosure of which would have a substantial likelihood of threatening public safety .420(1) 12. Those portions of records containing specific and unique vulnerability assessments or specific and unique emergency and escape response plans at a city, county, or state adult or juvenile correctional facility, or secure facility for persons civilly confined ... the public disclosure of which would have a substantial likelihood of threatening the security of a city, county, or state adult or juvenile correctional facility, secure facility for persons civilly confined ... or any individual's safety .420(2) 13. Commercial fishing catch data from logbooks required to be provided to the department of fish and wildlife under RCW 77.12. 04 7, when the data identifies specific catch location, timing, or methodology and the release of which would result in unfair competitive disadvantage to the commercial fisher providing the catch data .4 30( 1) 14. [L]ocation data that could compromise the viability of a specific fish or wildlife population, and where at least one of the following criteria are met: (i) The species has a known commercial or black market value; (ii) There is a history of malicious take of that species and the species behavior or ecology renders it especially vulnerable; (iii) There is a known demand to visit, take, or disturb the species; or (iv) The species has an extremely limited distribution and concentration .430(2)(c) b. Conditional-Record Exemptions (certain types of records exempted insofar as identified privacy/governmental interests are implicated) 1. Records filed with the utilities and transportation commission or attorney general under RCW 80.04.095 that [would result in 43 Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8 private loss, including an unfair competitive disadvantage, if disclosed] .330(1) c. Conditional-Hybrid Exemptions (both records and information exempted insofar as identified privacy/governmental interests are implicated) 1. Specific intelligence information and specific investigative records compiled by investigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies, and state agencies vested with the responsibility to discipline members of any profession, the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any person's right to privacy .240(1) III. AMBIGUOUS EXEMPTIONS (arguably categorical or conditional) 1. Records, maps, or other information identifying the location of archaeological sites in order to avoid the looting or depredation of such sites .300(1) 2. Records, maps, and other information, acquired during watershed analysis ... under RCW 76.09.370, that identify the location of archaeological sites, historic sites, artifacts, or the sites of traditional religious, ceremonial, or social uses and activities of affected Indian tribes, are exempt from disclosure under this chapter in order to prevent the looting or depredation of such sites .300(2) 3. Information compiled by school districts or schools in the development of their comprehensive safe school plans under RCW 28A.320.125, to the extent that they identify specific vulnerabilities of school districts and each individual school .420(3) 4. Information regarding the infrastructure and security of computer and telecommunications networks, consisting of security passwords, security access codes and programs, access codes for secure software applications, security and service recovery plans, security risk assessments, and security test results to the extent that they identify specific system vulnerabilities .420(4) 44 Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8 WE CONCUR: --. -~--~·--:. ·- 45 Resident Action Council v. Seattle Hous. Auth. No. 87656-8 MADSEN, C.J. (concurring)-Although I concur in the result reached by the majority, I write separately to state my concern that the majority's opinion exceeds the scope of the questions before the court. This court was asked to determine if the trial court erred when it ordered the Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) to produce grievance hearing decisions pursuant to the Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56 RCW, ordered SHA to produce responsive records in electronic format and to establish necessary policies to ensure PRA compliance, and awarded statutory damages. To the extent that the majority upholds the trial court's actions and awards attorney fees on appeal, I concur. The majority, however, goes far beyond reviewing the trial court's actions. For example, the majority, without briefing or a trial court ruling subject to review, outlines and charts the procedures an agency should follow in responding to public records requests. The majority also takes it upon itself to classify various provisions of the PRA that are unrelated to the issues presented in this case. It appears that the majority is attempting to advise SHA in the development of the very policies and procedures required under the injunction. While this guidance may be helpful, it is unnecessary to the disposition of this case and is improper. No. 87656-8 Madsen, C.J., concurring Further, several of the majority's PRA classifications are questionable. For instance, the majority classifies RCW 42.56.230(4)(a) as a categorical-information exemption. RCW 42.56.230(4)(a) exempts information required of any taxpayer if disclosure would be prohibited by RCW 84.08.210, among other statutes. However, RCW 84.08.210 has language mirroring RCW 42.56.230(4)(b), which the majority classifies as conditiona1. 1 Thus, it is unclear why subsection (a) should be classified as a categorical exemption while subsection (b) is classified as conditional when both provisions require a case-by-case determination. RCW 42.56.230(4)(a) may be more appropriately classified as a conditional exemption than a categorical exemption. Additionally, the majority determines that business plans under RCW 42.56.270(5) are information, yet classifies farm plans under RCW 42.56.270(17) as records. 2 No analysis is provided for this distinction, nor is analysis provided for several other classifications that are equally questionable. 1 RCW 84.08.210 states that (2) [t]ax information is confidential and privileged ... except as authorized by this section and defines tax information as (1) ... confidential income data and proprietary business information ... the disclosure of which would be either highly offensive to a reasonable person and not a legitimate concern to the public or would result in an unfair competitive disadvantage to the taxpayer. Similarly, RCW 42.56.230(4) exempts [i]nformation required of any taxpayer if the disclosure would (b) violate the taxpayer's right to privacy or result in unfair competitive disadvantage to the taxpayer. 2 RCW 42.56.270 exempts certain financial, commercial, and proprietary information from disclosure, and includes (5) [f]inancial information, business plans, examination reports, and any information produced or obtained in evaluating or examining a business and industrial development corporation organized or seeking certification under chapter 31.24 RCW and (17)(a) [f]arm plans developed by conservation districts, unless permission to release the farm plan is granted by the landowner or operator who requested the plan, or the farm plan is used for the application or issuance of a permit and also states that (b) [±]arm plans developed under chapter 90.48 RCW and not under the federal clean water act, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq., are subject to RCW 42.56.610 and 90.64.190. 2 No. 87656-8 Madsen, C.J., concurring Unwisely, the majority answers questions that the court was not asked to decide and on which no briefing was provided. Our review was limited to the public disclosure of SHA grievance hearing decisions and whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the injunctions and damages. In so far as the majority addressed matters outside of this determination, I disagree. 3 No. 87656-8 4