Volume 36 — Washington Appellate Reports

<bold>[1] Open Government — Public Disclosure — Exemptions — Invasion</bold> <bold>of Privacy — Scope.</bold> The personal privacy exemption from the public records disclosure requirement (RCW 42.17.310(1)(b)) applies only to records which are so personal in nature that disclosure would be highly offensive, not just embarrassing, to a reasonable person and of no legitimate concern to the public.<page_number>Page 26</page_number> <bold>[2] Open Government — Public Disclosure — Exemptions — Invasion</bold> <bold>of Privacy — Waiver.</bold> The disclosure to news media of general complaints as to a public official's performance waives the complaining party's right to claim that disclosure of the specifics of the complaints would fall within the personal privacy exemption to the Public Disclosure Act. <bold>[3] Open Government — Public Disclosure — Exemptions —</bold> <bold>Investigative Records — Scope.</bold> The exemption from public disclosure requirements for investigative records (RCW 42.17.310(1)(d)) applies only to records concerning a particular person who is the subject of an investigation designed to reveal criminal activity or other type of malfeasance. <bold>[4] Open Government — Public Disclosure — Exemptions —</bold> <bold>Intra-Agency Memoranda — Scope.</bold> RCW 42.17.310(1)(i), which exempts from public disclosure material expressing opinions or recommending policies, does not apply to factual complaints submitted by persons who have neither direct nor advisory decisionmaking authority. <bold>[5] Open Government — Public Disclosure — Civil Damages —</bold> <bold>Discretion of Court.</bold> An award of damages under RCW 42.17.340(3) against a party who wrongfully concealed public records is discretionary with the trial court and need not be based on a finding that the claimed exemption from disclosure was not made in good faith or was frivolous.

<bold>[1] Criminal Law — Jury — Right to Trial by Jury — Waiver —</bold> <bold>Validity — Trial Court Inquiry.</bold> Whether a criminal defendant's waiver of his right to a trial by jury was made intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily is determined by considering all the facts and circumstances, including the experience and capabilities of the defendant. The existence of a written waiver signed by the defendant and his attorney is not determinative, but it is strong evidence of validity. The validity of a waiver is not dependent upon the trial court's holding an independent conversation with the defendant as to the intelligent, knowing, and voluntary nature of his waiver.

<bold>[1] Court Commissioners — Disqualification — Revision Hearing —</bold> <bold>Adequacy of Remedy.</bold> There is no constitutional or statutory right to challenge a court commissioner peremptorily. The revision hearing provisions of RCW <cross_reference>2.24.050</cross_reference> provide an adequate remedy for a party claiming bias or prejudice on the part of a commissioner, and local court rules disallowing affidavits of prejudice against commissioners are valid. <bold>[2] Juveniles — Parental Relationship — Termination — In Camera</bold> <bold>Hearing.</bold> There is no authority under RCW Title 13 for conducting a portion of a termination proceeding out of the presence of a parent. <bold>[3] Evidence — Cumulative Evidence — Harmless Error.</bold> The erroneous admission of evidence which is merely cumulative is harmless.