DEVELOPMENTANDIMPLEMENTATIONOFA

COMPREHENSIVEEMAILORGANIZATIONANDRETENTION

SYSTEMFORWASHINGTONSTATEPATROLEMPLOYEES

GRETCHENDOLAN

WASHINGTONSTATEPATROL

AStaffStudySubmittedtothe

NorthwesternUniversityCenterforPublicSafety

SchoolofPoliceStaff&Command

Class#422

Burien,Washington

November6,2017

DEVELOPMENTANDIMPLEMENTATIONOFACOMPREHENSIVEEMAILORGANIZATIONAND

RETENTIONSYSTEMFORWASHINGTONSTATEPATROLEMPLOYEES

Problem:

TheWashingtonStatePatrol(WSP)isanationallyaccreditedlawenforcementagencywith

morethan1,600employees(AnnexA).TheWSPconsistsofeightregions(FieldOperations

Districts),theCommercialVehicleEnforcementBureau,theStateFireMarshal/FireProtection

Bureau,theStateToxicologyLab,theStateCrimeLab,andvariousotherspecializedservices

(AnnexB).TheWSPhasoneInformationTechnologyDivision,(ITD)locatednearWSP

headquartersinTumwater,Washington.

TheWSPcurrentlydoesnothaveanycentralarchivingsystemforemailssentorreceivedby

agencyemployees.TheWSPalsohaslimitedserverresourcesandhasplacedvolumelimitson

employee’sservermailboxes.Toallowemployeestoconductworkviaemail,employeescreate

OutlookDataFiles(PSTfiles)whichappendtotheirOutlookscreens,butarestoredentirelyon

theirdesktoporlaptopcomputers,nottheservers(AnnexC).Thisprocessallowsemployeesto

usetheiremailtoconductbusiness,butlimitsemailvolumeretainedonWSPservers.

TheWSPreceivesmorethan13,000publicrecordsrequestseachyear(AnnexDpage24).

ManyoftheserequestsinvolveWSPemail,whichisdefinedinthePublicRecordsAct(PRA)and

caselawinterpretingthePRAasapublicrecord(AnnexE).Sinceagencyemailsareheldboth

ontheserverandonindividualcomputerharddrives,therecanbenosinglesourcesearchfor

emailsresponsivetorecordsrequests.ITDemployeescanconductserversearches,but

employeesmustalsoindividuallysearchtheirPSTfilesandcomputers.

Becausethereisnostandardizedoruniversalfolderstoragesystemforemails,andretention

variesbyemailtopic,employeesareconfusedabouthowlongtokeepemails.Thisresultsin

manystaffeitherholdingemailseternally,ordeletingeverything.Neitherisalawfuloption.

TheWSPiscurrentlyworkingonarecordsrequestforallemailssentbyorreceivedbytheWSP

inJuly2017.Researchhasdeterminedthattheserveremailsalonenumberover1.7million

(AnnexF).

Inordertosetandcommunicateclearretentionrequirementsforemailsandproperlyand

lawfullyorganizeandmaintaintheserecords,theWSPmustdevelopandconsistentlyusean

agencywideemailorganizationandretentionsystem.

Assumptions

o TheWashingtonStatePatrolwillnotreceiveanyadditionalfunding.

o TheWashingtonStatePatrolwillnotbeabletochangeexistingpublicrecordslaws.

o RecordsrequestsforemailwillcontinuetooccurandincreaseintheWashingtonState

Patrol.

o TheWashingtonStatePatrolRecordsSectionwillnotreceiveanyadditionalstaffing.

o Policeaccountability,transparency,andintegritywillcontinuetobeprioritiesforthe

departmentandthecitizensweserve.

o ItistheresponsibilityofWashingtonStatePatrolleadershiptoensureemployeesare

trainedandequippedtoproperlymanageemail.

Facts

o EmailisapublicrecordsubjecttodisclosureunderthePRA(AnnexG).

o TheWashingtonStatePatrolisstaffedbymorethan600swornand1,000civilian

personnel(AnnexA).

o InthemonthofJuly2017,theWSPServercontained1,756,035emails(AnnexF).

o In2016,theWSPreceivedmorethan13,000recordsRequests(AnnexD).

o WSPpolicyrequiresemployeestomanagetheiremail(AnnexH).

Discussion

Background

ThemanagementofemailhasbeenalongstandingissueintheWashingtonStatePatrol(WSP),

withmoreworkdoneviaemailthaneverbeforeandthelegalretentionrequirements,public

disclosurerequests,agencylitigation,andsignificantliabilitythesepresenttotheagency.

Therearemanyregulatoryrequirementspertainingtoemailmanagement.Theseincludeboth

stateandfederallaw.Statelaw,forinstance,requiresthatpublicagenciesmustretaintheir

recordsforaspecificamountoftime,dependingonthetypeofrecord(RCW40.14.050).

Withimproperemailretentionandmanagement,notonlyarerecordsandhistory,beinglost,

butmanygovernmentlawsuitsnowturnonwhatisburiedinolde-mailmessages.Government

policysimplyhasnotkeptupwiththeevolvingtechnology(Perlman,2017).

Deletingemailstooquicklymayviolatefederal,state,localand/orindustryregulationsthat

requirecertaintypesofinformationtoberetainedforaminimumperiodoftime.Holding

emails“forever”increasestheWSP’sexposuretolegalexamination(InfoSec,2014).

ThenewerversionofMicrosoftExchangeofferstoolsandnewfeaturestohelpmanageemail.

Astheagencyre-implementsthestoragelimitsforemployeeemail,werecognizedtheneedto

readdressthisissue.(JarmonInterview,2017)

Serverstorageisaproblemasfarascapturingandholdingemailslongterm.Challenges

includepublicrecordrequestsforlargeamountsofagencyrecordsandthelackofcontinuityin

retentionfromemployeetoemployee.Recordsholdsfortortclaimsoragencylitigationcan

alsobedifficulttoproperlyandlegallycompletewhentherearenoagencywidemethodsfor

retentionandstorageofemails.Theriskishighofmissingimportantdocumentsbecausethey

arenotproperlykeptorcatalogued.Retentionrulesarebasedonrecordcontent,notmedium

(emailvs.paper),makingmanagingthemdifficulttounderstandformanyemployees.

Inaonemonthperiodthisyear(July2017)theWSPcountedover1,750,000emailsheldon

WSPservers.Thisfiguredoesnotincludeemailskeptandheldonpersonalfolders(PST)files

whicharespecificallylinkedtoindividualPCsratherthantheserver.Itisanticipatedthat

personalfoldersmayaccountforanother1,000,000emails(Harwellinterview,2017).

TheWSPhasreceivedarecordsrequestforallJuly2017emailsfromadisgruntledcitizen.

Assumingwecanprovide300-500emailspermonth(fittingthistaskinwithallotherjob

assignments)andonlytakingintoaccounttheknownnumberofemailsfromtheserver,itis

anticipatedthatthisrequestalonewouldtake292yearstocomplete.Thistimeframewould

notonlyexceedthelifeoftheemployeeandrequestor,butalsotheirchildren’s,children’s

lives.

Itiswellestablishedthatprovidingemployeeswithworktheycancompleteisakeyelementto

employeesatisfaction.Additionally,anemployeewhoknowsthattheirworkisbeingrequired

onlytosatisfythewhimofadisgruntledcitizenintentonharassinganagencycanmakean

employeefeeldiminished.Thisisinconflictwiththeagencyvaluetomakesureevery

employeeknowstheyareacriticalmemberofateamcommittedtoearningthetrustand

confidenceofthepublic.Itisalsoincongruentwithourmandatetobegoodstewardsofpublic

fundstoexpendsomanyresourcestooneindividualwithagrudge.Butitisourlegal

obligation.Managingthevolumeofemailsremainsourbesttooltocombatthisproblem.

ThisissueconcernsallWSPemployeesandourstakeholders.Taxpayersalsoshareconcernas

publicfundsaresometimesbeingspentonpersonalvendettas.Therearepotentialsignificant

budgetaryimpactsifserverspacecontinuestobeimproperlymanagedandpurchaseoflarger

serversbecomesnecessary.ThiswouldalsonecessarilyimpactWSPlegislativepriorities.

Itisentirelywithinourspanofcontroltoaffectthisissue.Externalstakeholdersareimpacted

byimpropercollectionandstorageofemailsbuttheyhavenointerestinorinvolvementinany

specificsolution.Thereisgeneralagreementthattheissueissignificantgiventheinfluxof

recordsrequestsforemails,thecontinuallyincreasingamountofworkdoneviaemail,thehigh

volumeofemailsgenerateddaily,andthecomplicatednatureofemailretention.

ComparativeAnalysis

Theneedtoaddressemailretentionpertainstoallpublicagenciesandlawenforcement

agenciesinthecountry.Someotherstateagencies(AttorneyGeneral’sOffice)andlargerlocal

policedepartments(SeattlePoliceDepartment)havecreateduniversalemailfoldersidentifying

specificemailsbyretentionperiodandimplementingautomaticdeletionperiods(Camus

interview,2017).Stillothershavepurchasedoutsidevendorservicestomanageelectronic

recordsaccordingtoasurveyofSPSC#422students.(Survey,2017).Ofthe30studentsin

class422,Ipreemptedresponsesfromthe16WSPemployees.Ireceived6responses.The

resultsofthesurveyindicatedthat100%oftherespondentslikedthemethodtheir

departmentemployedtoarchiveemails.50%ofthedepartmentsmadetheiremployeesat

leastpartiallyresponsibleforproperretentionoftheirownemails.Themajorityofthe

respondents(66%)usedacombinationofOutlookandanexternalvendor(Barracuda)to

managetheiremail.

RecordsRetentionandCourtSystem

Unmanagedemailcantriggerfinancial,productivity,andlegalnightmaresshouldthe

organizationonedayfinditselfembroiledinaworkplacelawsuit.Thecostandtimerequired

producingsubpoenaedemail,retaininglegalcounsel,securingexpertwitnesses,mountinga

legalbattle,andcoverjuryawardsandsettlementscouldputyououtofbusiness.Best

practicescallforaproactiveapproachtoemailmanagementandcombinewrittencontent,

usage,andretentionpolicies(Symantec2011).

Inaddition,thecourtsappreciateconsistency.Ifanagencycandemonstratethattheyhave

consistentlyappliedclearemailusage,content,andretentionpolicies—andhavesupported

writtenemailpolicy,thenthecourtismorelikelytolookfavorablyupontheorganization

shouldweonedayfindourselvesembroiledinaworkplacelawsuit(Symantec2011).

Ithasalreadybeendeterminedhowlongrecords(basedoncontent)mustbekept.

WSPRecordsRetentionSchedule

TheWSPrecordsretentionschedulewasapprovedbytheStateRecordsCommitteein

accordancewithRCW40.14.050.Publicrecordscoveredbytherecordsserieswithinthis

recordsretentionschedule(regardlessofformat)mustberetainedfortheminimumretention

periodasspecifiedinthisschedule(SGGRRS2016).Ifaretentionperiodisnotknownfora

particulartypeofdata,sevenyears(theminimumIRSrecommendation)isoftenusedasasafe

commondenominator.

Emailisavitalpartofagencyworkandthisisnotlikelytochange.Mostcommunicationis

conductedviaemailasisawidevarietyofotheragencybusiness.Addressingthecomplex

issueofemailretentionwillresultinemployeesbeingabletodiscontinuestockpilingemailto

avoidimproperdeletionordeletingeverythingandlosingkeyrecords.Bothcouldseverely

impactagencyliability.Emailmanagementwillalsodecreaseagencyliabilityforpublicrecords

requestsbymakingsearcheslesscumbersomeandcreatingsmallerandmoreconcisevolumes

ofresponsiverecords.Acomprehensiveemailorganizationsystemwouldalsoreducethe

tremendousnumberofemailsstoredontheserver.

TheWSPhastoolsalreadyatourdisposaltodesignamanageableemailarchivingsystem

(Harwellinterview,2017).

PossibleSolutions

WSPhasthreeoptionstoconsiderregardingtheproperandlawfulorganization,maintenance,

andretentionofemailwhichareoutlinedbelow:

OptionI

Continuetohaveeachemployeeberesponsiblefortheirownarchivingandretentionofemail.

Pros:

o Employeeswillnothavetolearnanewmethodforemailarchivingand

discovery.

o Employeeswouldbesavedthetimeoflearninganewsystem.

o Nonewpolicieswouldberequired

Cons:

o WhenWSPbecomeslitigantsincourtwehavetoproduceanyelectronic

informationconsideredrelevanttothecase.Ifwecan'teasilyretrievee-mails

becausewehaven'testablishedanefficientwaytostoreandrecoverthem,it

willrequirealotinstafftimetoretrieveandreviewalargevolume.

o Ifwecan'teasilyretrieveemailsbecausewehaven'testablishedanefficientway

tostoreandrecoverthem,itwillalsobecostlytoretrieveandreviewalarge

volume.

o Ifemployeeshavedeletedcruciale-mailsthatarepublicrecord,thatrisksan

unfavorablecaseoutcome.(Perlman,2008).

Costs:

o Thisapproachwouldincreasestoragecost.

o Andveryoften,therequiredemaillieshiddenamongthemillionsofjunk,spam,

andirrelevantemails,makingretentionanarduous,stressful,andproductivity

bustingactivity(Nayab,2011).

OptionII

Createuniversalemailfoldersforallemployeeswithbuilt-inretention.

Pros:

o Itwouldpaytosegmentdifferenttypesorusesofemailintodifferentretention

periodstoavoidsubjectingtheentireonlineemailstoretothemaximumemail

retentionperiod.

o Becauseemailretentiondependsoncontent,itwouldbeasimplematterto

createsomeuniversalfoldersforeachOutlookaccountbasedoncommonWSP

usesforemail.

o ITDindicatestheycanincludeautomaticdeletionwhenretentionrulesaremet

byemailfoldertype.

o Segmentationbytypeofcontentwouldlooksomethinglikethisforexample:

• Financial–7years• GeneralCorrespondence–1year• Equipment–6years• Spam–notretained• Executiveemail–2years• Spam–notretained• Everythingelse(e.g.,“defaultretentionpolicy”)–1year

Cons:

o Anarchivingsystemwillrequireadditionalworkforthoseemployeeswho

currentlyignoreretention,deleteeverything,orsaveeverything.Butonce

employeesfullyintegrateemailstorageintotheirdailyworkflow,itwilltake

nexttonoadditionaltime.

o Policieswillneedtobereviewedandorcreated.

Costs:

o Thisoptioncanbeaccomplishedwithcurrentlyavailableresources.Asnoted

above,therewillbeaninitialcostinemployeetimetobecomefamiliarwiththe

newfolderstructures.

OptionIII

PurchaseasystemfromanoutsidevendorsuchasBarracudatomanageWSPemailstorage.

Pros:

o ThisapproachwouldremoveadditionalworkloadforWSPstafftoprogramthe

abovefolderstructure.

o ItwouldremovethearchivingfunctionfromWSPemployeestoanoutside

vendor,savingWSPtime.

o Severalotherlocallawenforcementagenciesusethesesystemsandreportthat

theyareverysatisfied.

Cons:

o ThiswouldrequireabudgetaryimpactforWSPthatwedonotcurrentlyhave

fundingfor.

o Italsowouldprovideanoutsidevendorwithaccesstopotentiallysignificant

confidentialinformation.

Costs:

o AsystemsuchasBarracudawouldcosttheWSPupwardsof$225,000,with

additionalyearlycosts(AnnexI).

Conclusion

TheWashingtonStatePatrol(WSP)currentlyhasnoorganizedemailmanagementsystem.

Witheverincreasingvolumesofworkbeingdoneviaemail,itiscriticalthattheagencyfinda

methodofemailmanagementthatwillhelpustocomplywithregulationsandstateand

federalretentionlaws,whilemeetingourmissionandprovidingthebestresourcestoour

employees.OptionI,remainstatusquoisnotthebestoptionbecausetheproblemof

improperemailretentionwillpersistandtheagencywillremainoutofcompliancewithlegal

requirements.OptionII,whichisrecommended,isimplementingacomprehensiveinternal

emailfoldersystemthatwillassisteachWSPemployeeinproperemailmanagement.This

optiondoesnothaveabudgetaryimpactandafterinitialtimeinvestedinsetupandtraining,

thisoptionwillultimatelyreducestafftimetoretrievearchivedrecordsfromemail.OptionIII,

purchaseanavailablesystemforemailarchivingandretrievalfromanoutsidevendorisnota

goodoptionatthistimeasitwouldimpactouroperatingbudgetandthatmoneyiscurrently

unavailable.

Recommendation

Theimplementationofanin-houseemailfolderstructurewithautomaticretention/destruction

builtinforallemployeeswillofferamoreconvenientwayforemployeestomanageemail,

whilealsostreamliningagencyretentioncompliancewiththeleastbudgetaryimpact.Itis

recommendedthattheDepartmentimplementOptionII,acomprehensiveemailmanagement

strategytoincludeExecutivelevelsupport,updatedpoliciesonemailmanagement,and

technologybasedsolutionsofuniversalemailfoldersandautomatedretention/destructionto

helpenforcelaws,rules,andregulations.Aproposedimplementationscheduleisoutlinedin

AnnexJ.

()Approved()Denied;

Comments____________________________________________

__________________________________________

ChiefJohnR.Batiste Date

WorksCited

RevisedCodeofWashington40.14.050,Lawsof2017Perlman,E.(2008,January3)DeleteatyourownRisk,retrievedfromwww.iacpnet.com,

document#595434InfoSecInstitute(2014,May30)Top5EmailRetentionPolicyBestPractices,retrievedfrom

http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/top-5-email-retention-policy-best-practices/#grefInfoSecInstitute)

Interview(2017),InformationTechnologyDivisionAssistantCommanderScottJarmon,Dolan,

GretchenL.interviewerInterview(2017),InformationTechnologyDivisionElectronicMailAdministratorBillHarwell,

Dolan,GretchenL.interviewerInterview(2017),FormerLegalSecretarywithAttorneyGeneral’sOfficeMandyCamus,Dolan,

GretchenL.interviewerClass422SPSCSurvey.(2017).SurveyresultsfromNWUCanvasSymantec(2011),ManageElectronicRecords,MinimizeWorkplaceRisks,andMaximize

ComplianceEmailRetentionandArchivingretrievedfromhttps://www.symantec.com/.../b-email-retention-and-archiving-WP-21169199

StateGovernmentGeneralRecordsRetentionSchedule(SGGRRS),Version6.0(June2016)Nayab,N.(2011,July15)FollowTheseBestPracticeswhenArchivingEmail

AnnexTableofContents

AnnexA WashingtonStatePatrolAgencyOverview

AnnexB WashingtonStatePatrolOrganizationalChart(2016)

AnnexC MicrosoftOfficeIntroductiontoOutlookDataFiles

AnnexD WashingtonStatePatrol2015AnnualReport

AnnexE AttorneyGeneral’sOfficeOpenGovernmentResourceManual

AnnexF EmailfromBillHarwelltoGretchenDolan,August2,2017

AnnexG Westv.VermillionDivIICourtofAppeals,No.48601-6-II

AnnexH WashingtonStatePatrolPolicy6.01.020ElectronicMailRetention

AnnexI ScreenshotBarracuda.comPricing

AnnexJ ImplementationPlan

AnnexA

About Us · Agency Overview The Washington State Patrol makes a difference every day, enhancing the safety and security of our state by providing the best in public safety services.

Welcome to the Web site of the Washington State Patrol (WSP), one of the premier law enforcement organizations in the nation. Our Web site will provide you with an opportunity to learn more about us and the many services we provide.

The WSP is a professional law enforcement agency made up of dedicated professionals who work hard to improve the quality of life of our citizens and prevent the unnecessary loss of life on a daily basis. We will continue to work aggressively to enforce laws around the state while protecting the people of Washington from injury and grief.

The 600 or so troopers patrolling the highways every day are the most visible part of this agency, but there are also over 1,000 civilian employees who are less visible and just as important. They include those who work for the State Fire Marshal to help prevent fires in your home or workplace; those who work as technicians and scientists in our crime labs processing DNA samples to help prosecute criminal cases; and they include investigative support staff who maintain our criminal records and databases so that sex offenders don’t end up working with children.

Keeping our state safe is a huge job, even with our commissioned and civilian staff. That is why we routinely partner with other law enforcement, traffic safety, and criminal justice agencies to provide the highest quality of service to the citizens of this state.

The Internet gives us a unique opportunity to share information and ideas directly with those we serve, so I thank you and I hope you enjoy the time you spend visiting our Web site. If you have questions, be sure to let us know at questions@wsp.wa.gov.

Chief John R. Batiste

AnnexB

AnnexC

Introduction to Outlook Data Files Applies To: Outlook 2016 Outlook 2013

When you use Outlook 2013 or Outlook 2016, your email messages, calendar, tasks, and other items are saved on a mail server, on your computer, or both. Outlook items that are saved on your computer, are kept in Outlook Data Files (.pst and .ost).

Outlook Data File (.pst) An Outlook Data File (.pst) contains your messages and other Outlook items and is saved on your computer. The most common type of email account — a POP3 account — uses Outlook Data Files (.pst). Your email messages for a POP3 account are downloaded from your mail server and then saved on your computer.

Outlook Data Files (.pst) can also be used for archiving items from any email account type.

Because these files are saved on your computer, they aren’t subject to mailbox size limits on a mail server. By moving items to an Outlook Data File (.pst) on your computer, you can free up storage space in the mailbox on your mail server.

When messages or other Outlook items are saved in an Outlook Data File (.pst), the items are available only on the computer where the file is saved.

https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Introduction-to-Outlook-Data-Files-pst-and-ost-222eaf92-a995-45d9-bde2-f331f60e2790

AnnexD

AnnexE

AnnexF

From: Harwell, Bill (WSP) Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 9:56 AM To: Dolan, Gretchen (WSP) Cc: Jarmon, Scott (WSP); Sorenson, Don (WSP); Brunke, Volker (WSP); Amendala, Andy (WSP) Subject: FW: Assignment Notification: Ticket# 00128753 has been assigned.

InitialEstimate

Size:..............254.34GB

Items:............1,756,035

Bill Harwell

Exchange Administrator

Washington State Patrol

360-596-4936 Office

12-13936 Micro

From: itdhelp@wsp.wa.gov [mailto:itdhelp@wsp.wa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 7:38 AM To: Harwell, Bill (WSP) Cc: U-D-HEAT Integrated Systems Server Support Subject: Assignment Notification: Ticket# 00128753 has been assigned.

You have an assignment. Please do not reply to this message.

================

Ticket #: 00128753 Customer: Gretchen Dolan

Email Contact: Gretchen.Dolan@wsp.wa.gov

Phone Number: 360-596-4137

Department: TSB - Risk Management Division - Public Disclosure

Original Work Order Description:

Good Morning Bill – we have received another huge request regarding email. The requestor (who was rejected as a trooper applicant) wants “every single email sent or received by any employee of the Washington State Patrol in the month of July 2017”. I have told him I will respond to him with a down payment estimate within the required 5 business days (this came in late yesterday). So my question for you is – do you have any simple way to give me an estimate of the volume of emails for a given time frame? If possible, it would help me to know the approximate size and number of emails. This does not have to be exact, just a reasonable estimate.

Thank you,

ITD Customer Services

360.705.5999

AnnexGARTHURWEST,Respondent,v.STEVEVERMILLIONETAL.,Appellants.

No.48601-6-II

COURTOFAPPEALSOFWASHINGTON,DIVISIONTWO

196Wn.App.627;384P.3d634;2016Wash.App.LEXIS2701

May17,2016,OralArgument

November8,2016,Filed

SUBSEQUENTHISTORY:ReviewdeniedbyWestv.Vermillion,187Wn.2d1024,390P.3d339,2017Wash.LEXIS235(Mar.8,2017)USSupremeCourtcertiorarideniedbyVermillionv.W.,2017U.S.LEXIS5856(U.S.,Oct.2,2017)PRIOR-HISTORY:AppealfromPierceCountySuperiorCourt.DocketNo:14-2-05483-7.Judgesigning:HonorableStanleyJRumbaugh.Judgmentororderunderreview.Datefiled:09/19/2014.Westv.Vermillion,2016Wash.LEXIS1(Wash.,Jan.6,2016)

SUMMARY:WASHINGTONOFFICIALREPORTSSUMMARYNatureofAction:AcitizensoughttoenforcearequestunderthePublicRecordsActfortheproductionofcityrelated“communicationsreceivedorposted”throughapersonalwebsiteandassociatede-mailaccountrunbyacitycouncilmember.Thecitycouncilmemberrefusedtoproducetherecordsonthegroundsofconstitutionalprivacyrights.SuperiorCourt:TheSuperiorCourtforPierceCounty,No.14-2-05483-7,StanleyJ.Rumbaugh,J.,onSeptember19,2014,enteredapartialsummaryjudgmentinfavoroftheplaintiffandcertifiedthecaseforimmediatereview.CourtofAppeals:Holdingthatthesuperiorcourtcouldrequirethecitycouncilmembertoprovidethecitywiththee-mailsinhispersonale-mailaccountthatmetthestatutorydefinitionof“publicrecord”andtosubmitanaffidavitattestingtotheadequacyofhissearchfortherequestedrecords,thatthecitycouncilmembercouldnotavoidproductionofthee-mailsinhispersonale-mailaccountthatmetthe

statutorydefinitionof“publicrecord”becausetheFirstandFourthAmendmentstotheUnitedStatesConstitutionandWash.Const.art.I,§7didnotaffordthecitycouncilmemberanindividualprivacyinterestinsuchrecords,andthatthecitycouncilmembercouldberequiredtoproducethee-mailsbecausethePublicRecordsActappliestolocalelectedlegislativeofficials,thecourtgenerallyaffirmsthejudgmentbutremandsthecaseforthesuperiorcourttoamenditsordertoconformtothelanguageandproceduresetforthinNissenv.PierceCounty,183Wn.2d863(2015).COUNSEL:ArthurWest,prose.KathleenJ.Haggard(ofPorterFosterRorickLLP);JosephN.Beck,CityAttorneyfortheCityofPuyallup,andRamseyE.Ramerman,AssistantCityAttorneyfortheCityofEverett,forappellants.JudithA.EndejanonbehalfofWashingtonCoalitionforOpenGovernment,amicuscuriae.JUDGES:AuthoredbyLindaCjLee.Concurring:JillMJohanson,LisaSutton.OPINIONBY:LindaCjLee

OPINION¶1LEE,J.—ArthurWestsubmittedapublicrecordsrequestunderthePublicRecordsAct1(PRA)tothecityofPuyallup(City)forthe“communicationsreceivedorposted”throughapersonalwebsiteandassociatede-mailaccountrunbycitycouncilmemberSteveVermillion.Clerk'sPapers(CP)at41.Vermillionrefusedtoproviderecordsthatwereinhishome,onhispersonalcomputer,orinthee-mailaccountassociatedwithhiswebsite,citingprivacyprovisionsoftheWashingtonandUnitedStatesConstitutions.TheCitysupportedVermillion'sposition.Westsued.ThesuperiorcourtgrantedWest'smotionforsummaryjudgmentrequiringVermilliontosearchforandproducetherequestedrecords.VermillionandtheCityappeal,arguingthatthesuperiorcourterredbecausearticleI,section7oftheWashingtonConstitutionandtheFirstandFourthAmendmentstotheUnitedStatesConstitutionprotecttherequesteddocuments.

FOOTNOTES

1Ch.42.56RCW.

¶2WeholdthatitwasproperforthesuperiorcourttorequireVermilliontoproducetotheCitye-mailsinhispersonale-mailaccountthatmetthedefinitionofapublicrecordunderRCW42.56.010(3)andtosubmitanaffidavitingoodfaithattestingtotheadequacyofhissearchforthe

requestedrecords.WefurtherholdthattheFirstandFourthAmendmentstotheUnitedStatesConstitutionandarticleI,section7oftheWashingtonConstitutiondonotaffordanindividualprivacyinterestinpublicrecordscontainedinVermillion'spersonale-mailaccount.Therefore,weaffirm,butweremandforthesuperiorcourttoamenditsorderinlightofNissenv.PierceCounty,183Wn.2d863,357P.3d45(2015).FACTS¶3In2009,Vermillioncreatedawebsiteandane-mailaccountassociatedwiththewebsitetoaidinhisstatecongressionalcampaign.Vermillioncontinuedtousethewebsiteande-mailafterthecampaignendedforvariouscivicgroupswithwhichhewasinvolved.¶4In2011,Vermillionbeganusingthewebsiteande-mailtocampaignforapositiononthePuyallupCityCouncil.VermillionwaselectedtothePuyallupCityCouncileffectiveJanuary1,2012.Afterbeingelected,Vermillionoccasionallyreceivede-mailsfromconstituents,aswellaspeoplefromtheCity,throughhiswebsiteandpersonale-mailaccount.Vermillionalsousedhiswebsiteande-mailtocoordinatewithothercitycouncilcandidates.¶5WhenVermillionreceivedane-mailthatrequiredanofficialresponseoraction,hewouldforwardthee-mailtotheappropriatepersonattheCityandthendeleteitfromhise-mail.VermillionsaidheusedhisCitye-mailaccountwhenconductingCitybusiness,andheconsideredhiswebsiteandtheassociatede-mailaccounttobe“personalpapers.”CPat70.¶6WestsubmittedapublicrecordsrequesttotheCityforthecommunicationsreceivedorpostedthroughcitycouncilmemberSteveVermillion'swebsitethat“concern[ed]theCityofPuyallup,Citybusiness,oranymattersrelatedtoCitygovernance[,]theCityCouncilandmayor,orhismembershipontheCityCouncil.”CPat40.Vermillionrefusedtoproviderecordsthatwereathishome,onhispersonalcomputer,orinhisnon-Citye-mailaccount.TheCityinformedWestthattherecordshesoughtwerenotwithintheCity'spossessionorcontrol.WestfiledapublicrecordsrequestactionagainsttheCityandVermillion.¶7West,theCity,andVermillionfiledcross-motionsforsummaryjudgment.ThesuperiorcourtdeniedtheCity'smotion,butgrantedWest'smotioninpart,rulingthat(1)theFourthAmendment'sprotectionsagainstsearchandseizurewerenotimplicatedbecauseVermillionhadnoreasonableexpectationofprivacyincommunications“relatedtothepublic'sbusiness”;(2)theprivacyprotectionsunderarticleI,section7didnotapplybecauseWestwasnotseekingprivateinformation;(3)theFirstAmendmentwasnotimplicatedbecauseWestwasnotaskingforpoliticalactivityrecords;(4)VermillionwasnotsubjecttotheCity'spolicyprohibitingCityemployeesandvolunteersfromperformingcitybusinessonpersonalorthird-party“technologyresource[s],”whichincludeelectronicordigitalcommunicationsandcomminglingofCityandnon-Citydatafiles;and(5)thepublichasarighttoinspectpublicrecordslocatedonapersonalcomputerunlesstherecordsare“highlyoffensivetoareasonablepersonandarenotoflegitimatepublicconcern.”CPat183-85.The

superiorcourtthenorderedVermillion“underpenaltyofperjury[to]producerecordsthatarewithinthescopeof[p]laintiff'srecordsrequest.”CPat185.ThesuperiorcourtalsograntedaCR54(b)certification.¶8VermillionandtheCityappealeddirectlytotheWashingtonSupremeCourt.TheSupremeCourttransferredtheappealtothiscourtforreview.ANALYSIS¶9OurSupremeCourt'sdecisioninNissen,183Wn.2d863,controls.Accordingly,weconcludethattheargumentsraisedbyVermillionandtheCityfail,butweremandforthesuperiorcourttoamenditsordertoconformtothelanguageandproceduresetforthinNissen.A.STANDARDOFREVIEW¶10WereviewPRArequestsandsummaryjudgmentordersdenovo.RCW42.56.550(3);Nissen,183Wn.2dat872;Westv.ThurstonCounty,169Wn.App.862,865,282P.3d1150(2012).Wealsoreview“theapplicationofaclaimedstatutoryexemptionwithoutregardtoanyexerciseofdiscretionbytheagency.”Newmanv.KingCounty,133Wn.2d565,571,947P.2d712(1997).¶11ThePRA“‘isastronglywordedmandateforbroaddisclosureofpublicrecords.’”ProgressiveAnimalWelfareSoc'yv.Univ.ofWash.,125Wn.2d243,251,884P.2d592(1994)(pluralityopinion)(quotingHearstCorp.v.Hoppe,90Wn.2d123,127,580P.2d246(1978)).WearerequiredtoconstruethePRA'sdisclosureprovisionsliberallyanditsexemptionsnarrowly.ProgressiveAnimal

Welfare,125Wn.2dat251.¶12“Theburdenofproofshallbeontheagencytoestablishthatrefusaltopermitpublicinspectionandcopyingisinaccordancewithastatutethatexemptsorprohibitsdisclosureinwholeorinpartofspecificinformationorrecords.”RCW42.56.550(1).UnlesstherequestedrecordfallswithinaspecificexemptionofthePRA,orotherstatutethatexemptsorprohibitsdisclosureofspecificinformationorrecords,theagencymustproducetherecord.Soterv.CowlesPubl'gCo.,162Wn.2d716,730,174P.3d60(2007)(pluralityopinion);RCW42.56.070(1).B.NISSENV.PIERCECOUNTY¶13SubsequenttoWest'srequest,thesuperiorcourt'sdecision,andtheparties'submissionofappellatebriefs,ourSupremeCourtdecidedNissen,183Wn.2d863.ThepartiesthenfiledsupplementalbriefingaddressingNissen.TheNissenopinionisdispositiveoftheissuesraisedonappealinthiscase.¶14InNissen,thecourtconsideredwhetheranelectedcountyprosecutor'stextmessagesonwork-relatedmatterssentandreceivedfromaprivatecellphonemaybepublicrecords.183Wn.2dat

873.Therecordsrequestaskedforproductionof“‘anyandallof[electedcountyprosecutor's]cellulartelephonerecordsfor[privatetelephonenumber]oranyothercellulartelephoneheusestoconducthisbusinessincludingtextmessagesfromAugust2,2011,’”andfor“‘[electedcountyprosecutor's]cellulartelephonerecordsfor[privatetelephonenumber]forJune7,2010.’”Nissen,183Wn.2dat869-70.Nissenfirstconsideredwhetherrecordsofgovernmentbusinessconductedonaprivatephonewere“publicrecord[s]”asdefinedinthePRA;thenwhetherthespecificrecordsrequestedwere“publicrecord[s]”;andfinally,how“publicrecords”intheexclusivecontrolofpublicemployeescouldbesoughtandobtained.183Wn.2dat873.¶15First,Nissenheldthat“recordsanagencyemployeeprepares,owns,uses,orretainsonaprivatecellphonewithinthescopeofemploymentcanbeapublicrecordiftheyalsomeettheotherrequirementsofRCW42.56.010(3).”2183Wn.2dat877.Inreachingthisconclusion,thecourtnotedthatapublicrecordis“‘prepared,owned,used,orretainedby[a]stateorlocalagency’”butthatstateandlocalagencies“lackaninnateabilitytoprepare,own,use,orretainanyrecord”independently,and“insteadactexclusivelythroughtheiremployeesandotheragents.”Nissen,183Wn.2dat876(quotingRCW42.56.010(3)).Thus,whentheemployeeorotheragent“actswithinthescopeofhisorheremployment,theemployee'sactionsaretantamountto‘theactionsofthe[body]itself.’”Nissen,183Wn.2dat876(alterationinoriginal)(quotingHouserv.CityofRedmond,91Wn.2d36,40,586P.2d482(1978)).“Anemployee'scommunicationis‘withinthescopeofemployment’onlywhenthejobrequiresit,theemployerdirectsit,oritfurtherstheemployer'sinterests.”Nissen,183Wn.2dat878(quotingGreenev.St.Paul-MercuryIndem.Co.,51Wn.2d569,573,320P.2d311(1958)).

FOOTNOTES

2RCW42.56.010states:

Thedefinitionsinthissectionapplythroughoutthischapterunlessthecontextclearlyrequires

otherwise.

(1)“Agency”includesallstateagenciesandalllocalagencies.“Stateagency”includeseverystate

office,department,division,bureau,board,commission,orotherstateagency.“Localagency”

includeseverycounty,city,town,municipalcorporation,quasi-municipalcorporation,orspecial

purposedistrict,oranyoffice,department,division,bureau,board,commission,oragency

thereof,orotherlocalpublicagency.

(2)“Personininterest”meansthepersonwhoisthesubjectofarecordoranyrepresentative

designatedbythatperson,exceptthatifthatpersonisunderalegaldisability,“personin

interest”meansandincludestheparentordulyappointedlegalrepresentative.

(3)“Publicrecord”includesanywritingcontaininginformationrelatingtotheconductof

governmentortheperformanceofanygovernmentalorproprietaryfunctionprepared,owned,

used,orretainedbyanystateorlocalagencyregardlessofphysicalformorcharacteristics.For

theofficeofthesecretaryofthesenateandtheofficeofthechiefclerkofthehouseof

representatives,publicrecordsmeanslegislativerecordsasdefinedinRCW40.14.100andalso

meansthefollowing:Allbudgetandfinancialrecords;personnelleave,travel,andpayroll

records;recordsoflegislativesessions;reportssubmittedtothelegislature;andanyotherrecord

designatedapublicrecordbyanyofficialactionofthesenateorthehouseofrepresentatives.

(4)“Writing”meanshandwriting,typewriting,printing,photostating,photographing,andevery

othermeansofrecordinganyformofcommunicationorrepresentationincluding,butnotlimited

to,letters,words,pictures,sounds,orsymbols,orcombinationthereof,andallpapers,maps,

magneticorpapertapes,photographicfilmsandprints,motionpicture,filmandvideo

recordings,magneticorpunchedcards,discs,drums,diskettes,soundrecordings,andother

documentsincludingexistingdatacompilationsfromwhichinformationmaybeobtainedor

translated.

¶16Second,theNissencourtconsideredwhetherthespecificrecordsrequestedwerepublicrecords.Thecourtnotedthatthetextmessageswereawriting,andconsideredwhethertherequestedrecords“‘relat[e]totheconductofgovernmentortheperformanceofanygovernmentalorproprietaryfunction’”andwere“‘prepared,owned,used,orretained’byanagency.”Nissen,183Wn.2dat880-81(alterationinoriginal)(quotingRCW42.56.010(3)).Thecourtheldthatthecontentofthetextmessagesrequestedwerepotentiallypublicrecordssubjecttodisclosurebecausetherequestersufficientlyallegedthattheelectedprosecutorput“‘workrelated’”outgoingtextmessages“‘intowrittenform’”and“‘used’”incomingtextmessages“whilewithinthescopeofemployment,”therebysatisfyingthethreeelementsofapublicrecordinRCW42.56.010(3).Nissen,183Wn.2dat882-83.¶17Third,thecourtconsidered“themechanicsofsearchingforandobtainingpublicrecordsstoredbyorinthecontrolofanemployee.”Nissen,183Wn.2dat883.Thecourtrejectedthecounty'sandprosecutor'sargumentsthatvariousconstitutionalprovisions,includingtheFourthAmendmentandarticleI,section7,protectedtherecordsonaprivatephonefromdisclosure.Nissen,183Wn.2dat883.Thecourtreasonedthat“anindividualhasnoconstitutionalprivacyinterestinapublicrecord.”Nissen,183Wn.2dat883.Instead,thecourtheldthattheagencyemployeesandagentsarerequiredtosearchtheirown“files,devices,andaccountsforrecordsresponsivetoarelevantPRArequest,”andmustthen“produceanypublicrecords(e-mails,textmessages,andanyothertypeofdata)”totheagencyfortheagencytothenreviewfordisclosure.Nissen,183Wn.2dat886.Theemployeeoragentmaysubmit“‘reasonablydetailed,nonconclusoryaffidavits’attestingtothenatureandextentoftheirsearch,”toshowtheagencyconductedanadequatesearch.Nissen,183Wn.2dat885(quotingNeigh.All.ofSpokaneCountyv.SpokaneCounty,172Wn.2d702,721,261P.3d119(2011)).Butthecourtheld:

Whereanemployeewithholdspersonalrecordsfromtheemployer,heorshemustsubmitanaffidavitwithfactssufficienttoshowtheinformationisnota“publicrecord”underthePRA.Solongastheaffidavitsgivetherequesterandthetrialcourtasufficientfactualbasistodeterminethatwithheldmaterialisindeednonresponsive,theagencyhasperformedanadequatesearchunderthePRA.

Nissen,183Wn.2dat886.

C.PUBLICRECORDSONPERSONALACCOUNTS

1.PersonalE-mailAccountsareSubjecttothePRA

¶18AppellantsarguethatthesuperiorcourterredinorderingVermillion“toproducee[-]mailsfromhis

personale[-]mailaccountandswearunder[penaltyof]perjurythathehadcomplied.”Br.ofAppellant

(Vermillion)at3.Specifically,VermillionarguesthatthePRAdoesnot“authorizeanagencytorequire

anelectedofficialtosearchapersonale[-]mailaccount.”Br.ofAppellant(Vermillion)at4.Wereject

Vermillion'sargument.

¶19Nissensquarelyaddressedthisargumentandheldthatanagency'semployeesoragentsmust

searchtheirown“files,devices,andaccounts,”andproduceanypublicrecords,including“e-mails,”to

theemployeragencythatareresponsivetothePRArequest.183Wn.2dat886.TheNissencourtalso

heldthataffidavitsbytheagencyemployees,submittedingoodfaith,aresufficienttosatisfythe

agency'sburdentoshowitconductedanadequatesearchforrecords.183Wn.2dat885.Thus,wehold

thatitwasproperforthesuperiorcourttorequireVermilliontoproduce3totheCitye-mailsinhis

personale-mailaccountthatmeetthedefinitionofapublicrecordunderRCW42.56.010(3)andto

submitanaffidavitingoodfaithattestingtotheadequacyofhissearchfortherequestedrecords.

FOOTNOTES

3Wearemindfulofthedistinctionbetweentheterms“produce”and“disclose,”alongwiththe

variationsofeachword,asdiscussedinWhitev.CityofLakewood,194Wn.App.778,374P.3d286

(2016).Here,“produce”isusedbecause“produce”isthetermthattheSupremeCourtusesinNissen

andtheterm“produce”onlycontemplatesproductiontotheCity,whichthenreviewstheentireset

ofresponsiverecordsbeforedecidingwhatwillbedisclosedtotherequester.183Wn.2dat873

(orderingtheprosecutor“toobtain,segregate,andproducethosepublicrecordstotheCounty”).

2.NoIndividualConstitutionalPrivacyInterestsinPublicRecords

¶20Appellantsarguethatthesuperiorcourt“erredinrulingthatasearchwouldnotviolateVermillion's

privacyrights,”andthatthePRAdoesnotprovidesufficientguidancetodistinguishbetweenwhate-

mailsshouldbeproducedtotheCityandwhatshouldbeprotectedbyVermillion'sconstitutional

privacyrights.Br.ofAppellant(Vermillion)at3.Insupport,VermillionreliesonarticleI,section7and

theFourthAmendmenttoarguethattheentiretyofhispersonale-mailaccountisprotectedfroma

compelledsearch.VermillionalsoreliesontheFirstAmendmenttoarguethatthecontentofhise-mails

isprotectedbyhisrighttoassociateprivately.Wedisagree.

a.FourthAmendmentandArticleI,Section7

¶21InNissen,thecourtheldthat“anindividualhasnoconstitutionalprivacyinterestinapublic

record.”183Wn.2dat883.Liketheappellants,theelectedprosecutorandPierceCountyinNissen

“primarilycite[d]totheFourthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionandarticleI,section7of

theWashingtonConstitution”inassertingconstitutionalrightstoprivacyintheplacepotentially

containingpublicrecords.183Wn.2dat883n.9.Vermillion'sargumentdiffersonlyinthattheplace

potentiallycontainingpublicrecordsishispersonale-mailaccountratherthanapersonalcellphone.

Vermilliondoesnotarguethatthisfactualdistinctionchangestheconstitutionalanalysis,andwehold

thatitdoesnot.BecauseourSupremeCourtconsideredandrejectedtheargumentthattheFourth

AmendmentandarticleI,section7affordanindividualprivacyinterestinpublicrecordsheldona

personalcellphone,wealsorejecttheargumentthattheFourthAmendmentandarticleI,section7

affordanindividualprivacyinterestinpublicrecordscontainedinapersonale-mailaccount.

b.FirstAmendmentRightToAssociate

¶22VermillionandtheCitysubmittedsupplementalbriefsaddressingwhattheybelievedtheeffect

Nissenhasonthecasehere.AppellantsarguethattheNissencourtdidnotaddressthe“privacyof

associationalcommunications”affordedbytheFirstAmendment.Suppl.Br.ofAppellantsat9.Wehold

that(1)thelanguageoftheNissenholdingisnotlimitedtotheconstitutionalprinciplesexplicitly

expressedbytheNissencourt,(2)theNissenopinionshowsthecourtwasmindfuloftheFirst

Amendment'sassociationalprivacyrights,and(3)evenifindividualconstitutionalprotectionscould

preventdisclosureofpublicrecords,theabsenceofspecificityastotheparticularrecordsclaimedtobe

protectedherewouldrenderanyopinionastothoserecordssimilarlyvagueandwhollyadvisory.

¶23Asstatedabove,“anindividualhasnoconstitutionalprivacyinterestinapublicrecord.”Nissen,183

Wn.2dat883.Thelanguageofthisholdingdoesnotlimitittoonlycertainconstitutionalprivacy

interestsnortoonlythoseprivacyinterestsenumeratedundercertainconstitutionalprovisions.

Instead,Nissenwasclearthatanindividualdoesnothaveaconstitutionalprivacyinterestinpublic

records.Nissen'sholdingwasmindfuloftheassociationalprivacyrightstheFirstAmendmentaffords

electedofficials,asevidencedbythecourt'scitationtoNixonv.AdministratorofGeneralServices,433

U.S.425,426,97S.Ct.2777,53L.Ed.2d867(1977)(consideringFirstAmendmentassociationalprivacy

rightsofPresidentNixonastheyrelatedtothePresidentialRecordingsandMaterialsPreservationActof

1974(Act)4)immediatelyfollowingitsholding.183Wn.2dat883n.10.We,therefore,rejectappellants'

argumentthattheFirstAmendment'srighttoassociationprotectspublicrecordsinVermillion's

personale-mailaccountfromdisclosurebecauseassociationalprivacyrightsundertheFirstAmendment

areconstitutionalprivacyrights,and“anindividualhasnoconstitutionalprivacyinterestinapublic

record.”Nissen,183Wn.2dat883.

FOOTNOTES

4Specifically,TitleIofPub.L.No.93-526,88Stat.1695,notefollowing44U.S.C.§2107(Supp.V

1976).

¶24Nissenalsoconcludedthat“it[wa]simpossibleatth[at]stagetodetermineifanymessagesarein

factpublicrecords,”anddirectedtheelectedprosecutorto“obtainatranscriptofthecontentofallthe

textmessagesatissue,reviewthem,andproducetotheCountyanythatarepublicrecordsconsistent

with[theNissen]opinion.”183Wn.2dat888.ThiswouldthenallowtheCountytoconductitsreview

justasitwouldanyotherpublicrecordsrequest.Nissen,183Wn.2dat888.

¶25Similarlyhere,therecordbeforeusdoesnotcontaininformationuponwhichwecandetermine

whethere-mailscontainedinVermillion'spersonale-mailaccountcouldbesubjecttoFirstAmendment

protections,letaloneiftheyarepublicrecords.Theclosestthingtotheactuale-mailsindisputethatis

inourrecordisa“fictitiouse[-]mail…basedonanactuale[-]mailatissueinacasethatinvolvesthis

exactissuecurrentlybeinglitigatedinSkamaniaSuperiorCourt.”ReplyBr.ofAppellant(Vermillion)at

19n.40;seealsoSuppl.Br.ofAppellantsat17n.35(reproducingthesame“fictitiouse-mail”).A

fictitiouse-mailthatissimilarinanunexplainedwaytoane-mailinanunrelatedcasecannotbethe

basisforustoissueanopinionastothecharacterofareale-mailinthiscase.Werewetoissuesuchan

opinion,itwouldbe,atbest,advisory.SeeWalkerv.Munro,124Wn.2d402,418,879P.2d920(1994)

(“Wechooseinsteadtoadheretothelongstandingrulethatthiscourtisnotauthorizedunderthe

declaratoryjudgmentsacttorenderadvisoryopinionsorpronouncementsuponabstractorspeculative

questions.”).Therefore,weholdthatevenifindividualconstitutionalprotectionsundertheFirst

AmendmentcouldallowVermilliontonotdisclosepublicrecordsinhispersonale-mailaccount,itis

impossibleforustodetermineifanyofthee-mailsaresubjecttoFirstAmendmentprotectionsorare

evenpublicrecords.

3.AmicusBriefing

¶26TheWashingtonCoalitionforOpenGovernment(WCOG)filedanamicuscuriaebrief.Appellants

respondedjointlytotheAmicusbrief.

a.ElectedOfficials—Legislativevs.Executive

¶27WCOGarguesthatthePRAappliestoelectedofficials.Asexplainedabove,theNissencourtheld

thatthePRAappliedtoelectedofficialswhenitruledthatPierceCounty'selectedprosecutorwas

subjecttothePRA.183Wn.2dat879.

¶28Inreply,appellantsargue,forthefirsttime,thattheresultmustbedifferentasappliedtothem

becauseVermillionwasanelectedlegislativeofficial,ratherthananelectedexecutiveofficial.

Appellantscontendthatthisdistinctionisimportantbecause“unlikeanelectedexecutiveofficialsuch

asacountyprosecutor,anelectedlegislativeofficialhasnolegalauthoritytoactonbehalfofthecity

throughe[-]mail,ortotakeanyunilateralactiononbehalfoftheCityatall.”JointResponsetoAmicus

Br.at2.Wedisagree.

¶29ArecordsubjecttodisclosureunderthePRAisnotcontingentonitspossessor'sabilitytotake

unilateralactiononbehalfoftheagency.Instead,arecordissubjecttodisclosureunderthePRAifitis

“arecordthatanagencyemployeeprepares,owns,uses,orretainsinthescopeofemployment.”

Nissen,183Wn.2dat876.Andtherecordis“‘withinthescopeofemployment’onlywhenthejob

requiresit,theemployerdirectsit,oritfurtherstheemployer'sinterests.”Nissen,183Wn.2dat878

(quotingGreene,51Wn.2dat573).Thus,whetherarecordissubjecttodisclosurehingesonifthe

recordwasprepared,owned,used,orretained“withinthescopeofemployment,”notiftherecordwas

prepared,owned,used,orretainedwithinthescopeofemploymentbytheexecutivebranchofthe

government.Nissen,183Wn.2dat879.Appellants'attempttodistinguishNissenonthebasisthat

Vermillionwasanelectedlegislativeofficialratherthananelectedexecutiveofficialfails.

b.FirstAmendment

¶30WCOGarguesthattheFirstAmendmentdoesnotbarthee-mailsthatarepublicrecordsfrom

disclosure.WCOGreliesontheholdinginNissenthat“anindividualhasnoconstitutionalprivacy

interestinapublicrecord.”183Wn.2dat883.

¶31InsteadofaddressingNissen,appellantsrelyentirelyonNixontosupportthepropositionthat

“Vermillion'scorrespondencewithconstituentsqualifiesaspoliticalassociation,whichwouldbe

‘seriouslyinfringed’ifsubjectedtodisclosureunderthePRA.”JointResponsetoAmicusBr.at4(citing

Nixon,433U.S.at467).AppellantsseizeontheNixonCourt'srecognition“thatinvolvementinpartisan

politicsiscloselyprotectedbytheFirstAmendment.”433U.S.at467.TheNixonCourtwasconsidering

whetherasubpartoftheActthatprovidedthe“schemeforcustodyandarchivalscreeningofthe

materials”disclosedundertheAct“‘necessarilyinhibits[the]freedomofpoliticalactivity[offuture

Presidents]andtherebyreducesthequantityanddiversityofthepoliticalspeechandassociationthat

theNationwillbereceivingfromitsleaders.’”433U.S.at468(alterationsinoriginal)(internalquotation

marksomitted)(quoting“BriefforAppellant168”).TheNixonCourtheldthattheActdidnotinhibitthe

freedomofpoliticalactivityanddidnotreducethequantityanddiversityofpoliticalspeechand

association.433U.S.at468.

¶32Appellants'relianceonNixonratherthanNissenisnotpersuasive.Appellantsdonotarguethat

NixonandNissenareinconflictwithoneanother.Nordoappellantsanalyzethesignificantfactual

dissimilaritiesbetweenNixonandthecaseatbar.Nisseninterpretedthesamestatuteatissuehere,

undersimilarfacts,andcitingtoNixon,heldthatunderWashington'sPRA,“anindividualhasno

constitutionalprivacyinterestinapublicrecord.”183Wn.2dat883.WefollowNissenandhold

Vermillionhasnoconstitutionalprivacyinterestinpublicrecordsthatarecontainedinhispersonale-

mailaccount.

CONCLUSION

¶33UnderNissen,appellants'argumentsfail.However,becausethesuperiorcourtissueditsorder

beforeourSupremeCourtdecidedNissen,weremandthiscaseforthesuperiorcourttoamendits

ordertoconformtothelanguageandproceduresetforthinNissen.Thiswillincluderequiring

Vermilliontoconduct“‘anadequatesearch’”oftheundisclosede-mails.Nissen,183Wn.2dat885

(quotingNeigh.All.,172Wn.2dat721).IndoingsoVermillionmust“ingoodfaith…submit‘reasonably

detailed,nonconclusoryaffidavits’attestingtothenatureandextentof[his]search.”Nissen,183Wn.2d

at885(quotingNeigh.All.,172Wn.2dat721).Thoseaffidavitsmustbesubmitted“withfactssufficient

toshowtheinformation[hedecidesnottodisclose]isnota‘publicrecord’underthePRA.”Nissen,183

Wn.2dat886.5

FOOTNOTES

5Nissenrecognizedthatthis“adequate”and“goodfaith”procedurewassubjecttoabuse.183

Wn.2dat886.Thecourtmadetwopointsregardingthispotentialforabusethatareapplicablehere.

First,thesuperiorcourthastheauthorityto“resolvedisputesaboutthenatureofarecord‘based

solelyonaffidavits,’RCW42.56.550(3),withoutanincamerareview,withoutsearchingforrecords

itself,andwithoutinfringingonanindividual'sconstitutionalprivacyinterestinprivateinformation

heorshekeepsatwork.”Nissen,183Wn.2dat885.And,second,wherean“employeeassertsa

potentiallyresponsiverecordispersonal,heorshemustprovidetheemployerand‘thecourtswith

theopportunitytoevaluatethefactsandreachtheirownconclusions’aboutwhethertherecordis

subjectto”disclosure.Nissen,183Wn.2dat886(quotingGrandCent.P'ship,Inc.v.Cuomo,166F.3d

473,480-81(2dCir.1999)(adoptingprocedureusedbyfederalcourtsfortheFreedomof

InformationAct)).Thus,thepossibilityforincamerareviewisnotforeclosed,butisnotimmediately

required.

¶34Weaffirm,butweremandforthesuperiorcourttoamenditsorderinlightofNissen,183Wn.2d

863.

JOHANSONandSUTTON,JJ.,concur.

WashingtonAdministrativeLawPracticeManual

AnnotatedRevisedCodeofWashingtonbyLexisNexis

AnnexH6.01.020ELECTRONICMAILRETENTION

I.POLICY

A.ElectronicMailRetention

1.Electronicmail(e-mail)isapublicrecordinthesamemannerthatotherdocumentsareconsideredpublicrecordsunderstatelaw.Thecontentofthemessageandanyattachmentsdeterminehowlongtherecordshallbemaintained.

2.TheemployeewhosenttheoriginalmessagemustretaintherecordifitfallsundertheRetentionSchedulerequirements.CurrentretentioninformationcanbefoundontheRiskManagementDivisionRecordsRetentionIntranetsite.

3.E-mailsshouldnotberetainedontheserverforlongerthansix(6)months.Ifretentionrequirementislongerthansix(6)months,removefromtheExchangeserverandcreatealonger-termstoragemechanism(.pstfiles,server,externalharddrive).

4.E-mailthatisconsideredtohavenoadministrative,legal,fiscal,orarchivalrequirementforitsretentionisconsidered“transitory”andcanbedeletedwhennolongerneeded.AccordingtotheStateGeneralRecordsRetentionSchedule,thefollowinge-mailmayberetaineduntilnolongerneededforagencybusiness,thendestroyed:

a.RoutineAgencyInformation(GS50002).

b.SpecialAnnouncements(GS50001).

c.FYINoticeswithnobusinessactionneeded(GS50004).

d.CourtesyCopies(GS50005).

e.Junk/SpamMail(GS50004).

f.Informationalonlycopiesorextractsofdocumentsdistributedforreferenceorconvenience,suchasannouncementsorbulletins(GS50003).

Appliesto:AllWSPEmployeesSeeAlso:WSPPoliciesAttorneyGeneral’sRecordsHoldNoticeRequirements,RecordsRetention

102DisseminationofInformationChapter6WashingtonStatePatrol2017RegulationManual

AnnexI

AnnexJImplementationSchedule

Task PersonsResponsible DueDate Completed?MeetwithTechnicalServicesBureauAssistantChieftodiscussStaffStudy

GretchenDolan 12/31/2017

UponapprovaloftheAssistantChief,contactrepresentativesfrom

eachstakeholdergroupforfolderrequestsand

input

GretchenDolan 1/15/2018

ConfirmwithITthatnoadditionalbudgetencumbrancesare

requiredanddeterminetimetablefor

implementation

ITstaffandGretchenDolan 1/31/2018

ProvideITwithfolderdefinitionsand

retentionrequirements

WSPrecordsretentioncoordinatorandGretchenDolan

2/15/2018

ProjectinformationsubmittedtoAssistantChiefforfinalapproval

GretchenDolan 2/16/2018

Developshorttrainingpresentationforagency

staffonusingnewsystem

GretchenDolan 2/28/2018

Rolloutnewfolderstoallagencystaff

ITStaffandGretchenDolan 3/1/2018

Conductfollowupresearchtodetermineifvolumesofemailshave

stabilized

ITStaffandGretchenDolan 9/1/2018

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

DEVELOPMENTANDIMPLEMENTATIONOFACOMPREHENSIVEEMAILORGANIZATIONAND

RETENTIONSYSTEMFORWASHINGTONSTATEPATROLEMPLOYEES

Problem:

o ThereisnostandardizedoruniversalfolderstoragesystemforemailsinWSP,andretentionvaries

byemailtopic.Employeesareconfusedabouthowlongtokeepemails.Thisresultsinmanystaff

eitherholdingemailseternally,ordeletingeverything.Neitherisalawfuloption.

PossibleSolutions

o OptionI:Continuetohaveeachemployeeberesponsiblefortheirownarchivingandretention

ofemail.Thisapproachwouldnotresolvetheproblem.Thisapproachwouldincreasestorage

cost.

o OptionII:Createuniversalemailfoldersforallemployeeswithbuilt-inretention.Outlook

functionscurrentlyexisttoautodeleteandcreateuniversalfolders.Thisapproachwouldbe

theleastcostlyandresolvetheissuewithexistingresources.

o OptionIII:PurchaseasystemfromanoutsidevendorsuchasBarracudatomanageWSPemail

storage.ThisapproachwouldremoveadditionalworkloadforWSPstafftoprogramtheabove

folderstructure.AsystemlikethiswouldcosttheWSPupwardsof$225,000,withadditional

yearlycosts

Recommendation

o ItisrecommendedthattheDepartmentimplementOptionII,acomprehensiveemail

managementstrategytoincludeupdatedpoliciesonemailmanagementandtechnologybased

solutionsofuniversalemailfoldersandautomatedretention/destructiontohelpenforcelaws,

rules,andregulations.AproposedimplementationscheduleisoutlinedinAnnexJ.

()Approved()Denied;

Comments____________________________________________

__________________________________________

ChiefJohnR.Batiste Date