Judge Fines City $90,560 for Public Records Act Violations

A Federal judge has fined the nearly $100,000 in fines for violating the Public Records Act (PRA).

The June 26 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge James L. Robart held the city responsible for for an average range of 842 to 882 days from former Deputy City Manager and Attorney Londi Lindell. She alleged the city withheld certain documents that were vital to her case against the city for violating her civil rights in dismissing her in 2008.

The fine of $90,560 does not include an undetermined amount in attorney's fees also awarded to Lindell, though Judge Robart warned her to only claim "reasonable" fees that had not already been awarded in a prior sanction against the city in the case.

In a silver lining for the city, the punishment was far less than the $1.2 million fine Lindell and her legal team had sought. Judge Robart determined the city was liable for only three instances of illegally withholding documents and graded each penalty differently in terms of severity. He harshly criticized the city, however, in particular over its handling of records relating to a sex harassment investigation involving several City Council members, City Manager Rich Conrad and Human Resources Director Kryss Segle.

"The court finds that the decision to withhold the documents relating to the Segle Matter, in the face of the Waiver Email, constituted a negligent, reckless, wanton, or intentional noncompliance with the PRA by the City," Judge Robart wrote.

The fine against the city is reportedly reached by Lindell and the city, made public on June 9. Claims paid in that settlement will be covered by the Washington Cities Insurance Authority, which is used by municipal governments to cover their expenses in lawsuits. The PRA fines, however, are not covered and must be paid directly by the city.

(Ed Note: Due to an editing error, a declaration in support of sanctions for attorney's fees in an earlier motion in the case was misattributed to the PRA sanction discussed in this story. Mercer Island Patch regrets the error and sincerely appreciates readers who pointed out the bone-headed mistake.)