Are performance evaluations subject to a PDR?

Let me explain:

Statutory Provisions:

Personal information in files maintained for employees, appointees, or elected officials of any public agency [are exempt from disclosure] to the extent that disclosure would violate their right to privacy. RCW 42.56.230(2).
“Privacy” as [used in an exemption means] disclosure of information about the person: (1) Would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (2) is not of legitimate concern to the public.  RCW 42.56.050.

Performance evaluations of a public employee are a “public record.”  However, they are exempt from disclosure. 

Courts have held that an employee's performance evaluations with no discussion of specific incidents of misconduct are exempt because they are both highly offensive and of no legitimate concern to the public.  Dawson v. Daly, 120 Wn.2d 782, 845 P.2d 995 (1993); Brown v. Seattle Public Schools, 71 Wn. App. 613, 860 P.2d 1059 (1993).  In Dawson v. Daly, the court held that there was no legitimate public concern in disclosure of the performance evaluations of a deputy prosecutor to a potential defense expert witness because it would impair employee morale if employees thought that their evaluations would be made public to anyone who requested them and because supervisors would be reluctant to write candid evaluations of their subordinates.  The requestor in Brown was a PTA president who sought access to an elementary school principal's performance evaluations. The court upheld denial of the request, citing Dawson v. Daly. 

An appellate court ruled that the performance evaluation of a city manager, however, was not exempt because it was of legitimate concern to the public.  Spokane Research & Defense Fund v. City of Spokane, 99 Wn. App. 452, 994 P.2d 267 (2000).  Records describing specific instances of misconduct to be of legitimate interest to the public, despite the embarrassing nature of the disclosure.  See Brouillet v. Cowles Publishing Co., 114 Wn.2d 788, 791 P.2d 526 (1990) (records of teacher certificate revocation records are of legitimate public interest); Columbian Publishing Co. v. City of Vancouver, 36 Wn. App. 25, 671 P.2d 280 (1983) (the investigative agency exemption did not apply to shield the job performance investigation of police chief).  The question is whether false allegations are of “legitimate interest to the public” and therefore disclosable. 

This exemption is not limited to an actual employee “personnel file” but rather applies to employee information in an agency computer system.  See Tacoma Pub. Library v. Woessner, 90 Wn. App. 205, 216, 951 P.2d 357, review granted and remanded, 136 Wn.2d 1030, 972 P.2d 101, amended opinion, 972 P.2d 932 (1998). The exemption also includes records in files for current and former employees, whether held by an employing agency or other agency, such as a retirement system. Seattle Fire Fighters Union, Local No. 27, v. Hollister, 48 Wn. App. 129, 737 P.2d 1302, review denied, 18 Wn.2d 1033 (1987).