The Superior Court of Monterey County largely agreed with the petitioner’s contentions, ordering Hartnell to disclose most of the requested records. The court held that the private, personal communications of a public employee indeed qualified as public records because they pertained to a public entity (the Oasis Charter School) and were retained by a public entity (Hartnell), despite the absence of any connection between the two entities. The court also held that the unsubstantiated allegations should be disclosed because the court sees Nevarez as a “relatively” high-level employee.
On March 15, 2022, the ELA filed an amicus brief in support of Hartnell. The brief emphasized that the requested documents did not fit the definition of a “public record” subject to the PRA within the Government Code because they did not meet the “used” and/or “retained” requirements. Additionally, the brief points out that public schools and community college districts have an obligation to protect the privacy of their employees regarding unfounded complaints.
As to the emails regarding the charter school, the court held that the emails “relate[d] to the public’s business” and met “all other essential elements of the statutory definition of ‘public records.’” Hartnell argued that the emails were not related to the district’s business because they were related to a different public entity (the charter school). (The court noted that CSBA made a similar argument in its amicus brief.) The court disagreed, holding that it is required to construe provisions of the PRA broadly under Proposition 59, adopted by the voters in 2004. Specifically, the court held that the records were retained by a public agency, Hartnell, and were related to the public’s business because the charter school was a public agency. The court noted that Supreme Court precedent did not limit the definition of “public record” to apply only to records that were created for the convenience or use of the public agency that retains them, here, Hartnell. The court also disagreed with Hartnell’s argument that the proper recipient of the PRA request was the charter school, as charter schools have been subject to the PRA since 2020. Because Hartnell retained records of a public agency (the charter school), it was required to disclose the records regardless of whether the charter school also held the records. Finally, the court declined to address Hartnell’s argument that it could face liability if it disclosed records from another public agency that contained confidential information, as there was no evidence that the records at issue contained such confidential information.
As to the personnel records at issue, the court held they were disclosable. In declining to disclose the records, Hartnell relied on the exemption in the PRA for personnel files, “the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” This requires balancing the employee’s right to privacy in confidential personnel records against the public’s right to access the information in the records. In addressing this argument, the court analyzed the Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District case, which held that similar materials must be disclosed where a complaint against an employee has been upheld by the public agency employer, the complaint resulted in the imposition of discipline, or where the information in the employee’s file regarding the complaint is reliable and allows the court to determine if the complaint was well-founded and substantial. The employee’s status as a “high profile public official” may also be relevant to the holding in that the higher the status of the employee, the higher the public’s right to access to the information. Here, the employee in question held a “relatively high-ranking position,” director of student affairs.
Moreover, while Hartnell argued it neither disciplined the employee nor substantiated the complaint, the court found that evidence, including the district’s correspondence with the plaintiff regarding his complaint, demonstrated that the district took disciplinary action against the employee at issue because it stated that it had taken “remedial action” with respect to the complaint. The court also found that, even absent discipline from the employer or the employer’s substantiation of the complaint, at least some aspects of the complaint “were independently substantial in nature” rendering the whole complaint “substantial.” For example, the court found that an allegation in the complaint that the employee used his position to grant stipends to a close friend, a misuse of public funds, to be substantial. Thus, under the Marken analysis, the court found that disclosure of the records did not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and were required to be disclosed.