Arizona Supreme Court favors transparency in Phoenix police records fight

PHOENIX (CN) — The Arizona Supreme Court reversed an appeals court ruling allowing Phoenix to withhold police union negotiations from public view, siding with the Goldwater Institute in its public records lawsuit against the city.

Because Arizona’s public records law carries a “strong presumption of transparency and public access,” the high court ruled a public entity cannot hide behind vague or speculative harm to deny access to public records.

“If the ‘best interests of the state’ exception could be satisfied merely by asserting it in a conclusory, self-serving fashion, it would defeat the strong presumption of transparency and public access embodied in our public records statutes,” Justice Kathryn King wrote in a 19-page opinion. “Thus, the degree of likelihood of specific, material harm resulting from disclosure cannot be de minimis, vague, or purely speculative.”

The city argued releasing a draft memorandum of understanding amid active negotiations would lead to politicization, collusion with other unions and public posturing that would hinder the free exchange of ideas. Both the trial and appeals courts agreed.

The government is given broad discretion when interpreting the best interests of the state, but the Supreme Court ruled any threat to that interest must be concrete and particularized.

The seven-judge panel vacated the court of appeals decision and remanded the case back to the trial court to conduct an in-camera review of the documents in question to better determine whether release might present a real threat to the state.

“The Arizona Supreme Court’s decision effectively means that where the government provides weak justifications for hiding records, courts will order them disclosed, but that concrete and specific reasons can sometimes justify limited withholding,” Goldwater attorney Parker Jackson wrote in a press release following the Friday ruling. “Citizens have a right to know what their government is up to and should have an opportunity to provide feedback about labor negotiations and other public activities. As today’s decision affirms, that’s the whole point of our public records laws.”

Jackson and Goldwater sued Phoenix in 2022 after the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association began negotiations for the 2023-2025 cycle with the city without submitting its draft contract proposal for public comment as required by city code. Goldwater requested the records from Phoenix under the Freedom of Information Act, but the city refused, citing the “best interests of the state” exception to state law.

“City residents and taxpayers deserve to know what the union was demanding and what city leaders were offering during that process,” Jackson said. “But all of that was kept hidden from the public.”

The city released the final memorandum of understanding between it and the union once negotiations were final, but Goldwater and the American Civil Liberties Union argued in court that the public is entitled to documents at all stages of negotiation to show “what the government is willing to negotiate away.”

The trial court ruled Phoenix is not required to produce bargaining proposals for a negotiating cycle until the next memorandum of understanding has been finalized. The city has negotiated two subsequent contracts with the police union since the year in question.

With that in mind, the high court ruled the city must provide Goldwater with the bargaining proposals no longer subject to negotiation before the conclusion of litigation.

“Even if the city could prove that the ‘best interests of the state’ exception applied, courts apply it narrowly and for only so long as necessary,” Jackson said. “The city must now produce those documents.”

The city of Phoenix didn’t reply to a request for comment.

Follow @JournalistJoeAZ