Seattle Gay and Lesbian Workers Fight to Keep City-Funded Club Records Private
Seattle employees who have joined a city-sponsored group for gay and lesbian workers are slowly losing an uphill battle to keep their names and sexual orientation private.
This week a King County judge delayed the likely inevitable by ordering the release of documents with meeting attendee names redacted.
At issue is a public-disclosure request by an anti-gay activist who wants an accounting of who on the city’s payroll is benefiting from a city-funded Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Questioning and Friends Club, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports.
Philip Irvin, who claims the group has discriminated against him because he’s heterosexual, has filed a public-disclosure request seeking the membership list and meeting minutes from the group, the publication reports. Irvin purportedly wants to establish a similar group for formerly gay employees.
Superior Court Judge John Erlick has already indicated that there is a clear public interest in knowing who is receiving state benefits. His release of the redacted documents is preliminary. A hearing about whether to release all the requested materials is set for September.
The city, however, supports the release of information about this and other so-called “affinity” groups sponsored by the city. Each of the eight affinity groups receives $1,000 in annual funding for events. Employees who are members of the groups are allowed to spend up to two hours of work time a month on group activities.
City employees are attempting to block the release of information. Their attorney, Cecelia Cordova, argued that releasing their identities doesn’t show that particular employees received a public benefit, but merely serves as a means of publicly revealing their sexual orientation and political ideologies.
Judge Erlick isn’t insensitive to the concern. The Post-Intelligencer notes that at a recent hearing he acknowledged: “Although sexual orientation has become more accepted…stigma and discrimination remain.”
But he reasoned, “If [employees] retained a public benefit, their names will be released.”
