Court: Colorado Court of Appeals; June 25, 1998; Colorado; State Appellate Court
Pamela Zubeck and Freedom Newspapers, Inc. appealed the district court's denial of access to documents related to the El Paso County Retirement Plan under the Colorado Open Records Act (ORA) and meeting minutes under the Colorado Open Meetings Law (OML), as well as the denial of certain attorney fees. The defendants, including the Plan and the El Paso County Board of Retirement, cross-appealed the court's determination that the Plan was an agency of a political subdivision and the award of attorney fees to the plaintiffs under the OML. The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on attorney fees.
The plaintiffs intervened in a County Commissioners' investigation of the Plan's investment activities, asserting that the Plan was subject to the ORA and OML. The defendants contended that the Plan was a private entity, not obligated to disclose records. The district court ruled that the Plan was indeed an agency of the county and subject to the ORA and OML. It later determined which documents were subject to disclosure under the ORA and allowed redactions in meeting minutes under the OML.
The court awarded the plaintiffs attorney fees related to the OML claim, finding the Plan had violated the OML, but did not award fees for the ORA claim. Defendants contended that the district court erred in classifying the Plan as a government entity, but the appellate court reviewed the statutory interpretation de novo, emphasizing the legislative intent behind the ORA and OML. The ORA specifies that all public records maintained by any agency or political subdivision of the state must be open for inspection. The appellate court referenced prior case law to support the classification of the Plan as a county agency, countering the defendants' argument based on a narrow definition of political subdivisions from another case.
The Plan is determined to be an agency of the county, thus the argument about its classification is not further examined. The Open Meetings Law (OML) mandates that public policy formation is public business and must be conducted openly. All meetings involving a quorum of any local public body discussing public business or taking formal action must be open to the public, with minutes available for inspection. The El Paso County retirement system was established by the County's Board of Commissioners through enabling legislation, allowing counties to create retirement plans. The Plan utilizes public entity tax and health benefits, and county resources, with public entities contributing funds and the Plan having the authority to levy a retirement tax. The Plan is included in the County budget and, while it performs fiduciary functions, it operates as an agency of the County, thus is subject to the OML and the Open Records Act (ORA).
Plaintiffs claim the district court incorrectly denied them access to certain documents under the ORA, asserting that financial records should not be exempt from disclosure based on potential competitive disadvantages. The ORA aims to provide public access to records to ensure government transparency, with a presumption in favor of disclosure, though there are exceptions that must be narrowly interpreted. The burden to demonstrate an exemption lies with the record custodian. The district court ruled that certain documents were exempt under a specific provision that allows nondisclosure of trade secrets and confidential data. This exemption seeks to promote cooperation from those not obligated to provide information and to protect the rights of those who must provide such information.
Disclosure of financial information is deemed confidential under §XX-XX-XXX(3)(a)(IV) if it could impair the government's ability to obtain necessary information or harm the competitive position of the information provider. The exemption aims to protect information from private individuals or businesses, not government-generated data. In this case, most requested materials were held by the Plan and not obtained from external sources, leading to the conclusion that the documents do not qualify for exemption and should be accessible to plaintiffs.
The court also found that the district court incorrectly restricted access to the Plan's financial statements and related records under §XX-XX-XXX(6), which safeguards public records only in extraordinary situations where substantial public harm would occur. The Plan failed to demonstrate such extraordinary circumstances or any significant injury to public interest, given that public funds are involved, and there is a public interest in knowing how these funds are spent.
Additionally, the plaintiffs contested the district court's approval of the Plan's redaction of meeting minutes, asserting that the Plan should be subject to the Open Meetings Law (OML), which mandates public access to meetings where public business is discussed. The district court allowed redactions based on the assumption that certain discussions could have occurred in an executive session, which the court deemed incorrect, affirming that the Plan's meetings and minutes should be publicly accessible unless explicitly confidential under law.
The Plan failed to comply with statutory requirements for calling an executive session, resulting in the district court's error in allowing the redaction of meeting minutes not held in such a session. Both parties appealed the award of attorney fees to plaintiffs regarding their Open Meetings Law (OML) claim. Plaintiffs argued that their OML and Open Records Act (ORA) claims were closely related, warranting fees for all efforts to establish the Plan as a government agency and for subsequent OML issues. Defendants contended that no fees should be awarded since the Plan was unaware it was subject to the OML.
The court determined that plaintiffs were entitled to attorney fees based on the OML provisions, as the Plan's violation triggered this entitlement regardless of intent. The district court awarded $9,000 in fees, calculated by halving the efforts related to both claims and adding the time spent specifically on the OML claim. While both parties agreed that prior to January 27, 1995, efforts focused on establishing the Plan's public agency status, plaintiffs argued for full recovery of fees for that period, asserting that the claims were indistinguishable.
The court ruled that, since establishing the Plan's status was necessary for both claims independently, plaintiffs should recover all reasonable attorney fees for work done prior to January 27, 1995, as well as for efforts related to the OML claim thereafter. Consequently, the case is remanded for reassessment of the attorney fee award, with instructions to grant full fees for the period before January 27, 1995, and for all fees incurred in pursuing the OML claim after that date. The judgment affirming the Plan's status as a government entity under the OML and ORA is upheld, while the denial of plaintiffs' access to certain records is reversed. Further proceedings on attorney fees are ordered.
