Do All Public Records Have to Be Completely Public? Apparently So.

There is a man in the City of Seattle with an especially honed sense of equal rights. 58-year-old Philip Irvin is a senior power analyst for Seattle City Light. This man is straight, white, and a conservative Christian. Yet, he pays dues to the company's Black Association and attends gay-rights events. He is committed to making sure the City doesn't get away with providing more support for minority groups.

The City sponsors many gay activist groups, including the Seattle Public Utilities' LGBTQ Employees and Friends group. Irving is suing the City to reveal the list of all group members. He claims - and is correct - that these meetings are conducted on City premises and using City resources, which entitles him as a citizen to access information about and minutes from these meetings. City Attorneys intend to argue that the requested documentation has value for public interest, regardless of what Irvin intends to do with it. If the City pays for it, it is a matter of open public records.

On the other hand, affinity groups traditionally guarantee their members' privacy because not every member is yet comfortable with the concept of going public. They believe - and are correct - that their right to privacy is protected by state law. They never intended for their names to be released into public records.

The LGBTQ attorney said the city has already released where and when the group meets and its mission statement, and the law doesn't require names, e-mails or other personal information to become open to public records. Now it is up to the court to decide.

Irvin claims he needs the list of names because he wants to see for which City departments the people who attend these meetings work, and if as someone who works in a different city department he is eligible to join, attend and run for office in the group. He also wants to use the information to start his own city-sponsored affinity group for ... former gays and lesbians and their allies.