Opinion ID: 2567457
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the public interest is best served by disclosing the floros investigative report

Text: ¶ 47 The Floros investigative report includes detailed findings concerning Mr. Floros's inappropriate sexual behavior. The contents of the report also fairly communicate to the objective reader, albeit by inference, a genuine question about the propriety of the manner in which Salt Lake County officials monitored their workplace and responded to evidence of sexual misconduct. We agree with the Deseret Morning News that the investigative report provides a window, opaque as that window may be, into the conduct of public officials that is not available by other means, including the summary report. ¶ 48 Cases from other jurisdictions lend support to the conclusion that the legitimate public interest in information regarding a public official's misconduct may outweigh the official's interest in preserving personal privacy. In Local 2489, AFSCME v. Rock County, 2004 WI App 210, 277 Wis.2d 208, 689 N.W.2d 644, thirteen employees of the Rock County Sheriff's Office, who were disciplined for viewing inappropriate images on work computers, sought to prevent the release of copies of reports generated by . . . [the] investigations. Id. ¶ 5. The employees argued that the Janesville Gazette should be denied access to the records, in part, because the public interest in protecting the privacy and reputations of the employees outweighed the public interest in disclosure. Id. ¶ 27. ¶ 49 Although Wisconsin's records access statute is different from ours, we find the Wisconsin court's discussion of the privacy rights of public employees useful. The court said, [Though] the public's interest in not injuring the reputations of public employees must be given due consideration, . . . it is not controlling. When individuals become public employees, they necessarily give up certain privacy rights and are subject to a degree of public scrutiny. Id. ¶ 26. This is especially true when the misconduct . . . `allegedly occurred in the location where the public has entrusted [the employees] to work and during the performance of [their] public duties, and therefore should be more subject to public scrutiny.' Id. ¶ 27 (quoting Linzmeyer v. Forcey, 2002 WI 84, ¶ 28, 254 Wis.2d 306, 646 N.W.2d 811 (alterations in original)). The Wisconsin court rejected efforts to keep the records private. It ordered the release of the records with the proviso that the names of the disciplined employees be redacted. Id. ¶ 27. ¶ 50 The Montana Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in a case that involved allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination by a city mayor. Citizens to Recall Mayor James Whitlock v. Whitlock, 255 Mont. 517, 844 P.2d 74 (1992). Although we note that the court considered the case in the context of Montana's constitutional right to privacy rather than a records access statute, we find the facts and larger policy considerations helpful. ¶ 51 The city retained an independent investigator to prepare a report about the mayor for the city council following allegations of the mayor's misconduct. Id. at 76. After a group of citizens sought release of the report, the council refused to do so because the mayor had invoked his right to privacy. Id. The Montana court disagreed and held that the citizens group should be able to access the report. Id. at 79. The court concluded that the mayor's expectation of personal privacy with regard to the report was unreasonable because he is an elected official and as such is properly subject to public scrutiny in the performance of his duties. . . . When a person is elected to public office, the general public has . . . [the] right to be informed of the actions and conduct of their elected officials. . . . [T]he sexual harassment allegations against [the mayor] go directly to the mayor's, and another government official's, abilities to properly carry out their duties. Information related to the ability to perform public duties should not be withheld from public scrutiny. . . . . . . . [P]ublic officials cannot reasonably have as great an expectation of privacy as individuals who are not public servants. Id. at 77-78. Moreover, the court concluded that society will not permit complete privacy and unaccountability when an elected official is accused of sexually harassing public employees or of other misconduct related to the performance of his official duties. Id. at 78. ¶ 52 Like Montana and Wisconsin, we believe that the public interest in governmental accountability will often prevail over the interest of insulating an official from unwanted intrusion into sexually related conduct. The legitimate public interest in the release of the Floros investigative report provides a separate and significant basis for releasing it.