City-sponsored meetings for gays trigger showdown over privacy vs. public records

Over the last two decades, Philip Irvin has pushed, prodded and challenged the city of Seattle, his employer, on a host of minority-rights issues — all in the name of what he considers equal treatment.

The 58-year-old senior power analyst for Seattle City Light, who is not gay, has crashed gay-rights events at City Hall and sued when he felt he was being excluded from such meetings.

A conservative Christian who describes himself in public papers as "a Caucasian with no African-American blood," he became a dues-paying member of the City Light Black Employees' Association.

Now he's picking another fight: A judge today will hear arguments on whether the city should release to Irvin the names of anyone who has either attended, or received e-mails to attend, meetings of a city-sponsored affinity group at Seattle Public Utilities — the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Transexual (LGBT), Questioning Employees and Friends group.

"There is nothing that required this group to use city resources or facilities; they could have easily met in a bar or restaurant," Irvin said. "When they use city resources ... e-mail, meeting rooms, they waive the right to privacy."

One of about a dozen such affinity groups that use city meeting rooms and receive public funds, the LGBT group moved to block release of the information, saying doing so could "out" attendees who still want their privacy, which they believe is protected by state law.

But lawyers for the Seattle City Attorney's Office say the information is of public interest, and they will argue today before King County Superior Court Judge John Erlick that Irvin is entitled to it — regardless of how he plans to use it and how they may feel personally about giving it to him.

While anti-discrimination laws now exist to protect people based on sexual orientation, historically gays, lesbians and transgender people have been targets of harassment and discrimination, including loss of employment, when their sexual orientation has become known.

For his part, Irvin said he wants to see where in the city those who attend the meetings work and if — as someone who works in a different city department — he himself would be eligible to attend, join and even run for office in the group.

He also wants to use it to set parameters for a city-sponsored affinity group of his own that he wants to start — for former gays and lesbians and their allies.

Referendum 71

This showdown over privacy and the public's right to know comes as religious conservatives are on the street now trying to collect enough signatures for Referendum 71, which would repeal a gay-rights measure the Legislature passed this spring.

Irvin calls it "rank hypocrisy" for gay city employees to move to block release of their names at the same time a local gay group has said it will include on a searchable Web site all the names and addresses of those who sign the referendum petitions.

Seattle supports about a dozen affinity groups — including ones for people who are gay, black, white, Asian, Latino or Native American — as part of its goal to promote multiculturalism in city government.

The groups have access to city resources, including e-mail, meeting space and limited funding for training, seminars and hosting speakers.

Irvin says his group should have the same access. "I'm going to exercise my right to be treated equally," he said, and "not as a second-class citizen because I'm not in line with the gay agenda."

Already released?

M. David Coffman, a private attorney representing the gay employees, said the city already has released most of what Irvin sought — including where and when the group meets and its mission statement.

"What is not necessary, and what we disagree with the city on, is whether the law requires that the names, e-mails and personal identifying information need to be released as well," Coffman said.

It goes without saying, he said, that if an individual is not "out," having his or her name appear on a public list could be intimidating.

City Attorney Tom Carr said that while he would prefer not to disclose the names of meeting attendees, state law is very clear. Virtually everything the city does "is of public interest to someone," he said, and on top of that, this group does receive some funds from the city.

"It's a hard argument to make that how we spend taxpayer money is not a legitimate public interest."

Seattle Times researcher Miyoko Wolf contributed to this report.

Lornet Turnbull: 206-464-2420 or lturnbull@seattletimes.com