Another blow against public integrity.
July 31, 2008 - Spokesman Review editor Steve Smith on "A stunning ruling."
----------------------------------By now, I hope you have seen the story today on the Washington Supreme Court ruling protecting the names of teachers who have been accused of sexual misconduct. (Link here)
It's a pretty amazing ruling. If I read it correctly, it even provides the districts cover if officials choose not to notify police agencies of accusations even though they are so-called mandatory reporters.
In my view, this is another example of bureaucrats being given the power to hold back information critical to the public.
Some will argue the ruling protects the privacy of the accused until charges are substantiated. But who decides the charges have been substantiated, or even properly investigated? [Emphasis ours.] And in cases of sexual abuse by teachers, publicity is often what brings victims forward to provide the substantiation?
If there is a balance to be struck, I believe it ought to be struck in the public interest. Read the dissent for more on that view.
In any event, this ruling, like other recent decisions against public disclosure, is sure to lead to calls for legislative action. But it will take real legislative oomph to overcome the powerful teacher lobby.
The news article linked to states that the high court ruled Thursday that identifying teachers in unsubstantiated cases violates the teachers’ right to privacy. A lower court had previously ruled that the information should be disclosed in cases where school districts’ investigations were insufficient.
----------------------------------------
The case is:
Bellevue John Does 1-11 v. Bellevue School District No. 405
docket number 78603-8.
Opinion here PDF
Dissent here PDF
Moreover, the majority’s analysis fails to account for one of the underlying purposes of the PRA—accountability of public agencies. Because the majority decides that a teacher’s identity is not disclosable where the misconduct is unsubstantiated, and rejects the idea that the adequacy of a school district’s investigation has any bearing on disclosure, the majority leaves school districts free to control whether an accused teacher’s identity must be released by controlling the scope and depth of its investigation.A school district can effectively control whether an accused teacher’s identity must be released by reaching an agreement with the teacher exchanging resignation for silence. - from pg. 12.
Drawing the line for disclosure at records relating to unsubstantiated allegations fails to recognize the immense pressures on school districts. First, school districts come under pressure from the teachers and their associations to withhold teachers’ names. At the same time, if the school districts vigorously pursue allegations of sexual misconduct, they face the threat of lawsuits from students and their parents. - from pg. 11
Placing the power in the hands of school districts to control, to any extent, whether disclosure is required is incompatible with the PRA. - from pg. 14 [Bolding ours.]
