Court Opinion

ID: 9552337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:08:57.703874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:08.624074
License: Public Domain

CONNOR, Justice,
dissenting in part.
I dissent from the majority opinion. In my view the phrase “all agencies and departments” does not encompass municipal agencies.
*1327Before analyzing the language at issue, it is helpful to first set out some general rules of statutory construction. The common and approved usage of words and phrases is to be given effect, “unless such words and phrases have acquired peculiar meaning by virtue of statutory definition or judicial construction.” Lynch v. McCann, 478 P.2d 835, 837 (Alaska 1970); 2A C. Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 46.01, at 48-9 (4th ed. 1974).1 “[WJhere the legislative branch has expressed its intent ... in language so unambiguous as to leave no doubt as to the meaning or scope of the result dictated, the function of the courts is simply to apply that language.” State v. City of Anchorage, 513 P.2d 1104, 1109 (Alaska 1973). Every word of a statute should be accorded meaning, 2A C. Sands, supra, § 46.06, at 63; but constructions leading to absurd results are to be avoided. Sherman v. Holiday Construction Co., 435 P.2d 16, 19 (Alaska 1967).
My conclusion that AS 09.25.110 does not apply to municipalities is based on four considerations: (a) the terms “agency” and “department” have acquired a particular meaning by legislative definition which is inconsistent with the majority’s conclusion; (b) the legislature has always used clear language whenever it has intended a statute to apply to local governments; (c) the majority’s construction can lead to absurd results in other areas; and (d) the protective provisions of AS 39.51.020 can be construed consistently with my position.
The legislature always has defined “agency” or “department” as encompassing only state agencies or departments. An example is found in AS 40.21, pertaining to the management and preservation of public records:
“(1) ‘agency’ or ‘state agency’ means a department, office, agency, state board, commission, public corporation or other organizational unit of or created under the executive branch of the state government; the term does not include the University of Alaska; ...” (emphasis added).
AS 40.21.150. Or, in AS 44.62, pertaining to adjudication procedures:
“(1) ‘agency’ includes the state boards, commissions and officers listed in AS 44.-62.330 and those to which this chapter is made applicable by law or executive order involving reorganization under the constitution; ...” (emphasis added).
AS 44.62.640(b). Again, in AS 37.05, pertaining to fiscal procedures:
“(2) ‘state agency,’ ‘agency,’ ‘department,’ or similar term means a department, officer, institution, board, commission, bureau, division, or other administrative unit forming the state government, and includes the Alaska Pioneers’ Home and the University of Alaska; ...” (emphasis added).
AS 37.05.320.
On the other hand, whenever local application has been intended, clear language has been utilized. Legislative enactments distinguish between state departments or agencies and political subdivisions by expressly providing for application to both, or by articulating either parallel or contrasting powers or duties in separate sections.2 Adopting the majority’s construction makes *1328such modifying language redundant and thus fails to accord all terms a definite meaning.
A review of other statutes illustrates this point. For example, when addressing records management by governmental units, the legislature delineated local and non-local application. Enacted in 1970, one purpose of AS 40.21 was “to provide for the orderly management of current state and local public records.... ” AS 40.21.010. The statute distinguishes between “local record,” “record,” and “state record,”3 and explicitly addresses management of local records in a separate section.4 Further, the statute limits the term “agency” to state agencies.5
Of greater significance is AS 44.62.310, pertaining to the analogous issue of access to governmental meetings. Enacted substantially in its present form in 1959,6 the open meeting requirement explicitly was made applicable to the:
“governing bodies of all State and local government agencies, including municipalities, boroughs, school boards and all other boards, agencies, assemblies, councils, departments, divisions, bureaus, commissions or organizations (advisory or otherwise) of the State or local government .. . except juries and such other agencies as shall be expressly exempt by the Legislature.... ”
Ch. 143 (Ch. 1, art. VI, § 1) SLA 1959. The legislature certainly knew in 1959 how to make a statute applicable to local government; yet when it enacted AS 09.25.-110-.120 three years later, language evidencing such an intent was, and remains, conspicuously absent.7
*1329The majority’s interpretation of “agencies and departments” also has the potential of leading to absurd results. For example, AS 09.25.120 authorizes the state to exempt certain records from disclosure, which the state has done,8 but does not grant municipalities the same power.9 Thus, while state personnel records might not be public, municipal personnel records may be.
The strongest argument that AS 09.25.-110 was intended to apply to municipalities is based on the language of AS 39.51.020. Enacted in 1977, that statute states:
“(a) No public employee may be dismissed, demoted or suspended, laid off or otherwise made subject to any disciplinary action for communicating matters of public record or information under AS 09.25.110 and AS 09.25.120.
(b) As used in this section, ‘public employee’ means any employee receiving compensation for services provided to the state (including the University of Alaska) or any political subdivision of the state.
(c) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.” (emphasis added).
The statute clearly protects local government employees who release information under AS 09.25.110-120. Although the newspapers argue that this evinces a legislative intent that AS 09.25.120 applies to local governments, I believe that the statute’s purpose is to protect municipal employees who come into possession of state agency records and subsequently release them.
Municipal employees may come into possession of state records which are public under state law, but which are confidential under, for example, Anchorage’s freedom of information ordinance. See AMC 3.90.010 et seq. Anchorage asserts that municipal employees possess state records pertaining to labor agreements, personnel classification and pay scales, demographic and work force statistics, and financial audits of state funded programs. Without the protection of AS 39.51.020, it argues, a municipal employee may be reluctant to release such information, even though public under AS 09.25.110-120. Thus, the intent of AS 39.-51.020 can be construed as that of precluding the transmutation of a document’s public character due solely to a change in governmental hands. Absent a clearer legislative expression that AS 09.25.110-.120 applies to local government, I believe this argument adequately explains the intent of AS 39.51.020.
In light of the constitutional requirement that “[a] liberal construction shall be given to the powers of local government,” 10 I do not believe that AS 09.25.110 should govern access to local governmental records unless the legislative intent to do so is clear. As the City of Kenai argues, “state foreclosure of local policymaking [regarding records] should not occur unless there is (1) an overriding need for a uniform state policy, or (2) reason to believe that local decisions might be unfair to a particular group which is unable to protect itself through the local political process.” There is no evidence that such considerations apply here. Thus I believe that the ambiguous provisions of AS 09.25.110-.120 should be limited in application to state agencies or departments, and would, therefore, reverse the superior court’s contrary conclusion.

. This rule is codified in AS 01.10.040:
“Words and phrases shall be construed according to the rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage. Technical words and phrases and those which have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning, whether by legislative definition or otherwise, shall be construed according to the peculiar and appropriate meaning.”

. For example, AS 09.50.250(1) and AS 09.65.-070(d)(2) (separate provisions for state and municipal immunity from suit); AS 09.55.240(a)(2) and (3) (eminent domain powers granted separately to state and political subdivisions). Other provisions in AS 09.25 distinguish between state and local “agencies,” specifying each when a statute is intended to apply to both. For example, AS 09.25.170(a)(4), concerning the assertion of certain privileges, refers to “an agency or representative of an agency of the state, borough, city or other municipal corporation ... . ”
Further, as Kenai argues, matters directly pertaining to municipal operations tend to be collected in Title 29, even though they often appear in other titles as well. (Title 29 is entitled “Municipal Government”; Title 9, the source of the asserted public disclosure requirement, is entitled “Code of Civil Procedure.”) For example, AS 29.23.580 specifies that the open meetings requirement of AS 44.-*132862.310 applies to home rule and general law municipalities, even though AS 44.62.310 makes this clear by its own terms. Another example is AS 14.12.020(a), which is substantially reiterated in AS 29.33.050.

. AS 40.21.150 states, in part:
“Definitions. In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,
(4) ‘local record’ means a public record of a city or borough of any class, villages, district, authority or other political subdivision unless the record is designated or treated as a state record under state law;
(5) ‘record’ means any document, [etc.] ... developed or received under law or in connection with the transaction of official business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by an agency or political subdivision, as evidence of the organization, function, policies, decisions, procedures, operations or other activities of the state or political subdivision or because of the informational value in them; ...
(7) ‘state record’ means a record of a department, office, commission, board, public corporation, or other agency of the state government, including a record of the legislature or a court and any other record designated or treated as a public record under state law.”

. AS 40.21.070 states:
“Records management for local records. The governing body of each political subdivision of the state shall promote the principles of efficient records management for local public records kept in accordance with state law. The governing body shall, as far as practical, follow the program established for the management of state records. The department shall, upon request of the governing body of a political subdivision, provide advice and assistance in the establishment of a local records management program.”

. AS 40.21.150(1) states:
“ ‘agency’ or ‘state agency’ means a department, office, agency, state board, commission, public corporation or other organizational unit of or created under the executive branch of the state government; the term does not include the University of Alaska;

. Although the section has been amended numerous times, it has remained applicable to local governments.

. Although not dispositive, it is interesting to note the repeated legislative efforts to enact a comprehensive public access-to-records act. Those bills always address whether the act should apply to municipalities. See CSHB 131 (Judiciary), 10th Legislature, First Session (1977) (making disclosure applicable to “governmental units,” subsequently defined to include political subdivisions). Compare HB75, 11th Legislature, First Session (1979) (“governmental unit” includes political subdivisions) with SCS CSHB 75, 11th Legislature, First Session (1979) (“governmental units” restricted to executive branch agencies). If the current statute applies to local governments, such subsequent legislation would be unnecessary. Inferentially, the legislature has never believed that AS 09.25.110-.120 applies to municipalities.

. See AS 39.25.080; State Personnel Rule § 14.07.0.

. The cities provide another example. If “agencies and departments” in AS 09.25.110 encompasses them, it should similarly do so with respect to AS 44.62.320(a):
“The legislature, by a concurrent resolution adopted by a vote of both houses, may annul a regulation of an agency or department." (emphasis added).
(Originally enacted in 1959 as ch. 143, § 1, SLA; held unconstitutional on unrelated grounds in State v. A.L.I.V.E. Voluntary, 606 P.2d 769 (Alaska 1980).) No one, Kenai argues, would contend that the legislature reasonably intended this provision to encompass regulations of local governmental agencies.

. Alaska Const, art. X, sec. 1. See Bookey v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, 618 P.2d 567, 569 (Alaska 1980); Liberati v. Bristol Bay Borough, 584 P.2d 1115, 1123 (Alaska 1978); Jefferson v. State, 527 P.2d 37, 42 (Alaska 1974). See also AS 29.48.310; Municipality of Anchorage v. Frohne, 568 P.2d 3 (Alaska 1977).