<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Judiciary - Local Open Government Blog</title>
<link>http://www.localopengovernment.com/articles/in-the-courts/</link>
<description></description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2010</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:58:12 -0800</lastBuildDate>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:45:29 -0800</pubDate>
<generator>http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34</generator>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

<item>
<title>State Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Allows Judges to Blog</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In a recent <a title="http://www.courts.wa.gov/programs_orgs/pos_ethics/?fa=pos_ethics.dispopin&amp;mode=0905" href="http://www.courts.wa.gov/programs_orgs/pos_ethics/?fa=pos_ethics.dispopin&amp;mode=0905"><span title="http://www.courts.wa.gov/programs_orgs/pos_ethics/?fa=pos_ethics.dispopin&amp;mode=0905">Ethics Opinion</span></a>, the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee authorized blogging by judges.&nbsp;The Ethics Opinion advises, however, that any judge that engages in blogging should consider posting a disclaimer that the opinions expressed are only those of the author and should not be imputed to other judges and should&nbsp;outline constraints that the judge is subject to in order to avoid ex parte communication.&nbsp;</p>
<p>See our <a title="http://www.localopengovernment.com/2009/10/articles/in-the-courts/wa-supreme-court-reaffirms-that-public-records-act-does-not-apply-to-the-judiciary/" href="http://www.localopengovernment.com/2009/10/articles/in-the-courts/wa-supreme-court-reaffirms-that-public-records-act-does-not-apply-to-the-judiciary/">October 23, 2009</a> blog entry regarding the <i>City of Federal Way v. Koenig</i> case for information regarding the applicability of the Public Records Act to the judiciary.&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.localopengovernment.com/2009/11/articles/public-records/state-judicial-ethics-advisory-committee-allows-judges-to-blog/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.localopengovernment.com/2009/11/articles/public-records/state-judicial-ethics-advisory-committee-allows-judges-to-blog/</guid>
<category>Blog</category><category>Ethics advisory</category><category>Judiciary</category><category>Public Records</category><category>Public Records Act</category><category>Web 2.0</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:58:12 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Rosa Fruehling-Watson</dc:creator>

</item>
<item>
<title>WA Supreme Court  Reaffirms  that Public Records Act Does Not Apply to the Judiciary</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Over 20 years ago, the <a name="OLE_LINK1">Washington State Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;held in&nbsp;<i>Nast v. Michels</i>, 107 Wn.2d 300 (1986&nbsp;)&nbsp;that the&nbsp;State's&nbsp;Public Records Act (PRA) does not apply to court case files because the judiciary is not included in the&nbsp;PRA&rsquo;s definition of&nbsp;a State&nbsp;&ldquo;agency.&rdquo;&nbsp;On October 15, 2009 ,&nbsp;the Supreme Court reaffirmed&nbsp;its&nbsp;<i>Nast</i> holding in<span>&nbsp;</span><a title="http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions/disp&amp;filename=82883maj" href="http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions/disp&amp;filename=82883maj"><i><span>City of Federal Way v. Koenig</span>, 2009 WL 3298055.&nbsp;</i></a></p>
<p>The Koenig case began&nbsp;in February 2008.&nbsp;&nbsp;David Koenig, a regular claimant against Washington local governments, requested from the Federal Way Municipal Court all public records related to the resignation of Federal Way Municipal Court Judge Colleen Hartl&nbsp;.&nbsp; His request&nbsp; included&nbsp; correspondence to and from Presiding Judge Michael Morgan.&nbsp;The City of Federal Way provided 183 pages of documents&nbsp;.&nbsp; But, citing <i>Nast</i>, the City&nbsp;refused to provide the requested correspondence on the basis that the&nbsp;municipal&nbsp;court was not subject to the PRA.&nbsp; Koenig argued that <i>Nast</i> was wrongly decided and persisted in pursuing his requests.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The City&nbsp;filed a lawsuit and requested a declaratory ruling that the municipal court was not subject to the PRA.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;In September 2008 the trial court&nbsp;entered an order&nbsp;finding for&nbsp;the City.&nbsp; Koenig appealed that decision directly to the Washington State Supreme Court.</span></p>
<p>The&nbsp;&nbsp;Supreme&nbsp;Court affirmed the <i>Nast</i> holding.&nbsp; The Court emphasized that over the years the legislature had amended the PRA many times, without changing the definition of agency.&nbsp; Without a legislative change, the doctrine of <i>stare decisis</i> (to adhere to precedent) was applied&nbsp;&nbsp;by the Court to not disturb<i> </i>the <i>Nast</i> court's holding that&nbsp;the PRA does not apply to the judiciary.&nbsp; As a result, the Court held that the court records requested by Koenig&nbsp;were not subject to disclosure&nbsp;by the City of Federal Way&nbsp;under the PRA.&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.localopengovernment.com/2009/10/articles/in-the-courts/wa-supreme-court-reaffirms-that-public-records-act-does-not-apply-to-the-judiciary/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.localopengovernment.com/2009/10/articles/in-the-courts/wa-supreme-court-reaffirms-that-public-records-act-does-not-apply-to-the-judiciary/</guid>
<category>Agency</category><category>City of Federal Way</category><category>In the courts</category><category>In the news</category><category>Judiciary</category><category>Koenig</category><category>Nast v. Michels</category><category>Public Records</category><category>Public Records Act</category><category>Washington state Supreme Court</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:46:33 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Rosa Fruehling-Watson</dc:creator>

</item>


</channel>
</rss>