The fight over an investigation into the Federal Way Municipal Court could have broad implications for the public’s right to know everywhere in Washington.
Judge Michael Morgan is suing his own city and The News Tribune in an effort to keep a potentially embarrassing report under wraps.
The report, written by a Seattle attorney hired by the city, followed an allegation that the municipal court was a hostile workplace. The city was planning to release the document last year to The News Tribune, until Morgan intervened.
On Tuesday, he pleaded his case to the state Supreme Court, where it became evident that he is willing to try any legal theory to keep the report out of the public eye.
Morgan argues first that the record belongs to municipal court and therefore is not subject to the Public Records Act that governs executive-branch agencies.
He then goes on to assert that even if the record were subject to the public disclosure law, that the city has several excuses at its disposal for denying public access, among them attorney-client privilege and employee privacy.
As one of the opposing attorneys wrote in legal briefs presented to the court, “Morgan is attempting to recharacterize a relatively straightforward PRA dispute into a separation of powers struggle of constitutional proportion.”
What is clear from the court record is that the investigative report belongs to the City of Federal Way, not just its municipal court.
The fact that Morgan, the court’s presiding judge at the time, never saw the report without portions blacked out is telling. The fact that the city continued the investigation in the face of Morgan’s objections is equally convincing.
The Supreme Court’s decision is more likely to come down to a question of whether the report, as a public record, must be released.
Morgan relies heavily on Soter v. Cowles Publishing Co., a 2007 state Supreme Court decision that gave public officials greater authority to suppress internal communications provided they have an attorney in the loop and express a fear of litigation.
The Soter ruling was decided on the narrowest of margins, 5-4. In a scathing dissent, Justice Charles Johnson wrote that the majority “erroneously expands the scope of what have been narrow exemptions to the public disclosure act.”
The Morgan case could be the perfect opportunity for the court to clarify its intentions, to state for the record that the public has a right to know how their elected officials are behaving in office, even (and especially) when that behavior is egregious enough to prompt fears of lawsuits.
Judge Morgan is running for re-election and faces opposition in the Aug. 18 primary. The Supreme Court should expedite its decision so that voters can cast their ballots knowing all there is to know.
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.