Washington Public Records and Equivalent Government Agencies

A recent Washington State Court of Appeals decision, Fortgang v. Woodland Park Zoological Society, No. 72413-4-1 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 01, 2016), illustrates a possible line of analysis for what organizations are functional equivalents of government agencies.

Background

The court looked at whether the Woodland Park Zoological Society (“WPZS”) is the Phoenix Zoofunctional equivalent of a government agency for the purposes of the Public Records Act (“PRA”).  In 2002 the City of Seattle entered into a 20 year contract with WPZS giving the society the authority (mostly) to manage and operate the zoo.  The contract gives WPZS exclusive authority over how the zoo is run and transfers all property to WPZS (including the animals).  But the city continues to fund the zoo under a levy and from the general fund which totals millions of dollars each year, and provides an additional $500,000 in maintenance fees, all distributed annually.  If all that money is not enough, WPZS can still apply for grants from the City.

The court states the public funding WPZS receives from the city is actually just a small amount of its overall budget.  Most of the money it receives comes from private donations and investments, and zoo-related goods and services (tickets and merchandise).

The records sought information about medical care and the treatment of WPZS’s elephants.

No exceptions to the PRA were asserted.  So the main issue the court looked at is whether WPZS is the functional equivalent of a government agency.  If WPZS is the functional equivalent of a government agency then the PRA applies.  If WPZS is not the functional equivalent, then the PRA does not apply.

Telford Test

The Court of Appeals adopted their own test to see if an organization is the functional equivalent of a government agency — the Telford test.1

Telford is a balancing test weighing four different factors.[  No one factor is dispositive.  Instead, the court balances all four factors and makes and overall determination.

The factors are:

  1. Whether the agency performs a government function
  2. The level of government funding
  3. Extent of government involvement or regulation
  4. Whether the entity was created by the government
Analysis of the Factors

The court did not find a single factor went in WPZS’s favor.

  • Whether the agency performs a government function.

The court said government functions fit the Telford definition when they cannot be delegated to the private sector, or are core government functions.  The rights and responsibilities given to WPZS through the contract did not include any core government functions.

  • The level of government funding

Public funding is a small part of WPZS’s operating budget, even though government funding is in the millions of dollars.  This factor only weighs in favor of the PRA when the majority of the funding comes from the government.  That is not the case here.

  • Extent of government involvement or regulation

The court acknowledges while WPZS’s authority is not absolute, but nothing interferes with the society’s ability to manage and operate the zoo. The city does not have day-to-day authority over the zoo.  There was not enough for the court to find the government had any significant control over the zoo.

  • Whether the entity was created by the government

The government played no part in WPZS’s creation.  The society itself (not the zoo) was created in the 1960s by a private group of citizens.  The court concludes since WPZS was not created by the government, this factor does not go in favor of the PRA.

Conclusion

Every single factor went in favor of WPZS not being a functional equivalent of a government agency.

 

  1. Telford v. Thurston County Board of Commissioners, 974 P. 2d 886 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *