City Attorney Will Appeal Ruling in SPD Public Records Dispute

The Seattle Police Department and city officials just can't seem to get along, can they? This year has been host to a number of highly public spats between Seattle legislators and the SPD on a variety of subjects, including police accountability, the seeming discrepancy between the priorities of the Officer's Guild and the public, and legal representation of officers. Now, the two sides are butting heads again - this time over whether or not officer's names should be revealed in public records requests.

The most recent conflict stems from a contract dispute between the SPD and the city, in which a labor arbitrator recently sided with the Seattle Police Officer's Guild. In his ruling Wednesday, the arbitrator said that the city must stop releasing the names of police officers accused of misconduct in public-disclosure requests, stating that it violated the terms of the contract between the city and the SPD made in 2008. However, the City Attorney's Office said yesterday that it plans to file an appeal against the decision, arguing that it violates the city's Public Records Act. They also stated that they would continue to release officers' names in public-disclosure requests during the appeal process.

The original contract, signed by both parties in July of 2008, included provisions that "an officer's personal identifying information shall be redacted from all records released." In fact, the city complied with that policy, redacting all personal information from record requests until 2009, when a series of highly public cases of officer misconduct resulted in the city adopting several new policies suggested by a citizen review board formed to increased police accountability.

Although the shift in policy may have been well-intentioned, it clearly puts the city in violation of the original contract. The arbitrator was right to rule in favor of the SPOG. However, that doesn't mean the fight is by any means over - the city's appeal neatly side-steps the issue of contract violations by focusing on the Public Records Act instead. By filing the appeal the way they did, the city is essentially asking whether the PRA trumps the contract they hold with the SPD, which legally, seems like a smart move - realistically, it's the only way they'll win the ruling.

It's also worth noting that City Attorney Pete Holmes served as the chair of the SPD Office of Professional Accountability Review Board for five years before his election in 2009 - his familiarity with the arbitration process, as well as the intricacies of the contract and Public Records Act, suggests that this is a conflict that might drag on for a while. Stay tuned.