City of Kenai v. Kenai Peninsula Newspapers: Difference between revisions
From Ballotpedia
m (Text replacement - "<table>↵{{Open Records and Transparency Project (Sunshine Review)}}" to "</table> {{Open Records and Transparency Project (Sunshine Review)}}") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
State=Alaska | | State=Alaska | | ||
Court = [[Alaska Supreme Court|Alaska Supreme Court]] | | Court = [[Alaska Supreme Court|Alaska Supreme Court]] | | ||
Precedent= 1.) The | Precedent= 1.) The Alaska Public Records Act was designed to apply to municipalities as well as state institutions. | ||
2.) When considering whether to grant an exemption, the courts must always weight the public benefit of disclosure against the justification and benefit to the city or individuals from non-disclosure. | 2.) When considering whether to grant an exemption, the courts must always weight the public benefit of disclosure against the justification and benefit to the city or individuals from non-disclosure. | ||
}}</div></td></tr> | }}</div></td></tr> | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
==Important precedents== | ==Important precedents== | ||
This case established two important precedents:<br/> | This case established two important precedents:<br/> | ||
1.) The | 1.) The Alaska Public Records Act was designed to apply to municipalities as well as state institutions. | ||
2.) When considering whether to grant an exemption, the courts must always weight the public benefit of disclosure against the justification and benefit to the city or individuals from non-disclosure. | 2.) When considering whether to grant an exemption, the courts must always weight the public benefit of disclosure against the justification and benefit to the city or individuals from non-disclosure. | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
* Kenai began a search for a new city manager in '''June of 1979'''. In the process of reviewing applications, the city met a number of times without notice, in closed meetings. | * Kenai began a search for a new city manager in '''June of 1979'''. In the process of reviewing applications, the city met a number of times without notice, in closed meetings. | ||
* The Peninsula Clarion, a newspaper within the Kenai Peninsula Newspapers, submitted a records request for the names and credentials of the individuals the city was considering. | * The Peninsula Clarion, a newspaper within the Kenai Peninsula Newspapers, submitted a records request for the names and credentials of the individuals the city was considering. | ||
* On '''August 2, 1979''', the city rejected the request arguing that the release would violate the privacy of individuals and hinder future attempts to gather applicant information. | * On '''August 2, 1979''', the city rejected the request, arguing that the release would violate the privacy of individuals and hinder future attempts to gather applicant information. | ||
* The Kenai newspapers filed suit. The Trial court ruled in favor of the newspapers. | * The Kenai newspapers filed suit. The Trial court ruled in favor of the newspapers. | ||
* Upon hearing the ruling, 10 of the remaining 32 applicants withdrew their application. | * Upon hearing the ruling, 10 of the remaining 32 applicants withdrew their application. | ||
* The City appealed the ruling, arguing that the | * The City appealed the ruling, arguing that the Alaska Public Records Act does not apply to municipalities.<ref name="ruling">[http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/default.aspx?cfid=1&cnt=DOC&db=AK-CS-WEB&eq=search&fmqv=c&fn=_top&method=TNC&n=1&origin=Search&query=TI%28%28%22CITY+OF+KENAI%22%29++%26++%28%22KENAI+PENINSULA+NEWSPAPERS%22%29%29&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT8855142122210&rltdb=CLID_DB15527132122210&rlti=1&rp=%2Fsearch%2Fdefault.wl&rs=AKCS1.0&service=Search&sp=AKCS-1000&srch=TRUE&ss=CNT&sv=Split&tempinfo=case&vr=2.0#SearchTerm6 Ruling of the Court]</ref> | ||
==Ruling of the court== | ==Ruling of the court== | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
The Court of appeals delivered a split decision and ordered the documents released but permitted the council to meet in closed session to discuss the applicants. | The Court of appeals delivered a split decision and ordered the documents released but permitted the council to meet in closed session to discuss the applicants. | ||
<br/><br/> | <br/><br/> | ||
The court first established that the common law procedure prior to the passage of the | The court first established that the common law procedure prior to the passage of the Alaska Public Records Act was to permit inspection of all records, including municipal records, to any individual of interest and that the codification of the Alaska law did not intend to alter this precedent. The court grounded this assertion in a number of cases from other states, including, [[Mushet v. Department of Public Service of City of Los Angeles]], [[Clement v. Graham]], [[State ex rel. Wellford v. Williams]], and [[State ex rel. Colescott v. King]]. The court established a balancing test to determine if the public interest in disclosure outweighed the city's interest in non-disclosure. The court determined that the facts of the case favored disclosure because the public interest in insuring that an appropriate officer filled the city manager position clearly outweighed the cities interest in gathering an appropriate applicant pool or the applicants interest in privacy. However, the court did find in the city's favor with regard to the Alaska Open Meetings Act, which, according to the court, permits closed executive sessions for the discussion of material sensitive to the character of a person. Based on these facts, the court affirmed the order to release the documents and reversed the order requiring the city to only discuss the applicants in open meetings.<ref name="ruling" /> | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
Latest revision as of 15:34, 23 June 2025
This Ballotpedia article needs to be updated.
This Ballotpedia article is currently under review by Ballotpedia staff as it may contain out-of-date information. Please email us if you would like to suggest an update.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sunshine Laws |
| How to Make Records Requests |
| Sunshine Litigation |
| Sorted by State, Year and Topic |
| Sunshine Nuances |
| Deliberative Process Exemption |
City of Kenai v. Kenai Peninsula Newspapers was a 1982 case before the Alaska Supreme Court.
Important precedents
This case established two important precedents:
1.) The Alaska Public Records Act was designed to apply to municipalities as well as state institutions.
2.) When considering whether to grant an exemption, the courts must always weight the public benefit of disclosure against the justification and benefit to the city or individuals from non-disclosure.
Background
- Kenai began a search for a new city manager in June of 1979. In the process of reviewing applications, the city met a number of times without notice, in closed meetings.
- The Peninsula Clarion, a newspaper within the Kenai Peninsula Newspapers, submitted a records request for the names and credentials of the individuals the city was considering.
- On August 2, 1979, the city rejected the request, arguing that the release would violate the privacy of individuals and hinder future attempts to gather applicant information.
- The Kenai newspapers filed suit. The Trial court ruled in favor of the newspapers.
- Upon hearing the ruling, 10 of the remaining 32 applicants withdrew their application.
- The City appealed the ruling, arguing that the Alaska Public Records Act does not apply to municipalities.[1]
Ruling of the court
The trial court ruled in favor of the newspapers, ordering the release of the applications of all applicants who wished to remain in the running despite the release of their credentials.[1]
The Court of appeals delivered a split decision and ordered the documents released but permitted the council to meet in closed session to discuss the applicants.
The court first established that the common law procedure prior to the passage of the Alaska Public Records Act was to permit inspection of all records, including municipal records, to any individual of interest and that the codification of the Alaska law did not intend to alter this precedent. The court grounded this assertion in a number of cases from other states, including, Mushet v. Department of Public Service of City of Los Angeles, Clement v. Graham, State ex rel. Wellford v. Williams, and State ex rel. Colescott v. King. The court established a balancing test to determine if the public interest in disclosure outweighed the city's interest in non-disclosure. The court determined that the facts of the case favored disclosure because the public interest in insuring that an appropriate officer filled the city manager position clearly outweighed the cities interest in gathering an appropriate applicant pool or the applicants interest in privacy. However, the court did find in the city's favor with regard to the Alaska Open Meetings Act, which, according to the court, permits closed executive sessions for the discussion of material sensitive to the character of a person. Based on these facts, the court affirmed the order to release the documents and reversed the order requiring the city to only discuss the applicants in open meetings.[1]
Associated cases
- Mushet v. Department of Public Service of City of Los Angeles
- Clement v. Graham
- State ex rel. Wellford v. Williams
- State ex rel. Colescott v. King
See also
External links
- Ruling of the Court(Search by party name for "City of Kenai" and "Kenai Peninsula Newspapers")
