The Salina Journal v. Brownback
115194
| Kan. Ct. App. | Apr 7, 2017Background
- Salina Journal and Associated Press requested applications and applicant lists for two newly created Saline County commissioner seats from the Governor's Office under the Kansas Open Records Act (KORA).
- Governor's Office denied the requests, citing K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 45-221(a)(4) (personnel records exception), and also asserted preliminary working papers and privacy exceptions.
- Plaintiffs sued to compel disclosure; the trial court denied defendants' summary judgment and granted plaintiffs' summary judgment, ordering disclosure (with redaction of truly private data).
- Defendants appealed, arguing KORA's personnel exemption covers "personnel records . . . pertaining to employees or applicants for employment," which they contend includes applicants for appointment to public office that will become employment with the public agency.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the personnel records exception (a)(4) unambiguously covers applicants for employment (including applicants for appointment to public office) and directed entry of summary judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether K.S.A. 45-221(a)(4) (personnel records exception) covers applicants for appointment to public office | Applicants for appointment are not "applicants for employment"; thus the exception does not apply | "Applicants for employment" includes persons seeking appointment to public office; records are exempt | Held: Exception covers applicants for employment, including those seeking appointment to public office; exemption applies |
| Whether Southwest Anesthesia Service controls to exclude nonemployees/applicants | Southwest Anesthesia bars the exemption for all nonemployees, so applies here | Southwest Anesthesia concerned independent contractors (not applicants); it does not control applicants-for-employment scenario | Held: Southwest Anesthesia is inapplicable—it addressed nonemployees not seeking employment; does not negate coverage for applicants for employment |
| Whether the agency holding records must be the ultimate employer for the exemption to apply | The exemption should apply only when the agency holding records is the prospective employer | No such limiting language exists; statute covers applicants for employment generally regardless of which public agency holds the records | Held: No requirement that the agency holding records be the ultimate employer; statute's plain language controls |
| Scope of other claimed exemptions (preliminary working papers; privacy) | Plaintiffs: those exceptions, at most, permit redaction of sensitive data but not wholesale nondisclosure | Defendants: raised them but relied principally on personnel exception on appeal | Held: Court decided personnel exception was dispositive; it did not reach or rely on other exceptions for reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Southwest Anesthesia Serv., P.A. v. Southwest Med. Ctr., 23 Kan. App. 2d 950 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997) (personnel exemption did not apply to independent contractors who were not seeking employment)
- Martin v. Naik, 297 Kan. 241 (Kan. 2013) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Ullery v. Othick, 304 Kan. 405 (Kan. 2016) (plain language governs statutory interpretation)
- Eveleigh v. Conness, 261 Kan. 970 (Kan. 1997) (scope and limits of liberal-construction doctrine)
- Link, Inc. v. City of Hays, 266 Kan. 648 (Kan. 1998) (last antecedent rule in statutory construction)
- Milano's Inc. v. Kansas Dept. of Labor, 296 Kan. 497 (Kan. 2013) (avoid interpretations that render statutory language meaningless)