A court document shows that Lakewood made a series of mistakes in denying the requests of an open-records crusader over a three-year period starting in 2004.
According to a Pierce County Superior Court document released this month, the city violated the state Public Records Act at least twice between December 2005 and September 2007.
Lakewood made other missteps in some of its responses to David Koenig, who requested records about a Seattle police officer arrested in a Lakewood prostitution sting.
At one point, the city mailed paperwork Koenig had requested to the wrong address, even though it had the correct one available, according to the court.
Those are some of the details in the 15-page document signed by Pierce County Superior Court Judge Susan Serko, who ordered the city to pay more than $40,000 in fees and penalties to Koenig in April.
The News Tribune wrote in general terms about Koenig’s court victory at that time, but the judge’s written order wasn’t yet available.
Lakewood officials say they didn’t purposefully try to deny Koenig records and that they are advocates for open government.
City Attorney Heidi Wachter, who was Lakewood’s chief lawyer then and now, said much of the problem owed to a lack of communication between staffers and Koenig about the precise documents he was asking for.
“I think at the outset, we should have looked at his requests from a layman’s use of the language rather than our use,” she said.
The case began when a Seattle police officer, Daniel Espinoza Jr., was arrested on suspicion of patronizing a prostitute in Lakewood during an October 2004 sting.
The Municipal Court judge issued a stipulated order of continuance. That means that if Espinoza had no criminal violations for a year, the case would be dismissed. In November 2005, it was.
During this period, Koenig read about the arrest in The News Tribune, and requested the police report in November 2004.
According to court records, the city responded and said copies of the report were available, but that they would have parts redacted. The city said the information that was blacked out was exempt due to a “not guilty” finding in the case.
Koenig argued with Lakewood over what information was left out of the copy he was given; the city eventually let him read the full report at City Hall.
Serko wrote that the city’s stated reason for denying Koenig was incorrect.
“A ‘not guilty’ finding hadn’t been entered. In fact, the case was still pending,” she wrote.
In December 2005, Koenig renewed and expanded his request for all records in the case. The city denied it.
Wachter later explained that her office made an error and that prosecutors believed Koenig wanted only prosecutors’ records, not those and court records, too.
Again, Serko agreed with Koenig that the denial was a violation of the Public Records Act.
Koenig sued the city in 2007, arguing that the public has the right to know whether the officer’s conduct was properly investigated and whether prosecutors and the judge acted properly in dismissing the charges.
In May of that year, he asked Lakewood to review the request he made two years earlier and provide him with a log to describe any item that was redacted or withheld.
Lakewood responded and told him it didn’t have such records when in fact it did, Serko wrote. Again, this was a violation of state law.
Wachter explained Friday that although Lakewood had the information, it didn’t keep it in the form of a log.
Over the next few months, the two sides traded documents and arguments. In July 2007, the city sent 22 pages of records to “Daniel” Koening at an old address, even though it had his new address, according to the court.
“The city’s failure to send records to Koenig with a correct name and address was negligence,” Serko wrote.
Wachter maintains to this day that the city thought Koenig’s address hadn’t changed.
But in August 2007, the court ruled against the city.
Koenig said he doesn’t think Lakewood’s mistakes were a simple case of miscommunication, as city officials are arguing.
“Either it’s extreme stupidity to the point of delusion or they’re just out and out lying,” he said.
Koenig and his attorney had argued that Lakewood’s actions were willful, but Serko ruled that they didn’t rise to that level, so she didn’t award him all of the $120,000 he was seeking.
This isn’t the first time the construction worker from Federal Way has challenged a city over open-records laws. He’s made a practice of fighting for and winning public records around the Puget Sound area ever since documents related to the sexual assault of his daughter were kept from him in the mid-1990s.
In Lakewood’s case, the violations were “rather flagrant,” and it seemed as if the city tried to deceive him over a period of time, Koenig said.
“My worry is the judgment is the end result and they don’t change,” he said Friday.
City Manager Andrew Neiditz acknowledges that errors were made but insists city staff understands open-records laws and tries to be as open as possible.
“I feel our staff has the capability of handling what’s really a complicated subject,” Neiditz said.
Brent Champaco: 253-597-8653
JOIN THE DISCUSSION | Register here
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service. If you have any questions, including why your comment may not be showing immediately after you submit it, be sure to visit the commenting FAQ.