EDITOR’S NOTE: Due to a change in the trial date, this post has been updated with revised legal documents that include new timelines.
This week, Burien resident Charles Schaefer filed a lawsuit against the City of Burien, accusing it of violating Washington’s Public Records Act (PRA) by withholding key documents related to the 2023 evaluation of City Manager Adolfo Bailon.
Schaefer (no relation to BTB Founder/Publisher Scott Schaefer), a former chair of Burien’s Planning Commission and a public advocate for transparency, submitted the lawsuit on Oct. 31, 2024, seeking full access to records he claims the city improperly withheld and alleging the city failed to comply with the PRA’s public interest mandate.
The complaint, filed in King County Superior Court, outlines Schaefer’s effort to obtain all council and staff feedback on City Manager Bailon’s performance evaluation. Schaefer’s initial request, submitted Sept. 25, 2023, specifically sought “all council and staff feedback on the City Manager’s evaluation as well as any records summarizing the results of the evaluation.” In response, Burien officials provided a summary letter of the evaluation along with an exemption log listing withheld documents and citing various PRA exemptions, including privacy protections and deliberative process exemptions. Schaefer contends these exemptions do not apply to the records in question, asserting they are subject to public access under Washington’s transparency laws.
“For the past year I have been asking the city to release documents relating to City Manager Bailon’s six month performance evaluation, completed in August of 2023,” Schaefer told The B-Town Blog. “I know several other members of the public have requested this information as well. The courts have already addressed this issue in a case relating to an evaluation of the Spokane City Manager and I am confident Burien will eventually be required to make the records public. It’s disappointing, but not surprising, that a lawsuit seems to be the only way to make the city comply with the law.”
City Manager Evaluation and Previous Legal Precedent
The case hinges on Schaefer’s argument that performance evaluations for high-ranking public officials, such as the city manager, are a matter of public interest. Schaefer cites a Division III Court of Appeals decision in Spokane Research Defense Fund v. City of Spokane, which held that a city manager’s performance evaluation was subject to public disclosure due to legitimate public interest. Schaefer argues the City of Burien’s handling of his records request conflicts with that precedent, particularly given the significant role of the city manager in overseeing municipal operations and policy.
The documents in question include staff and council feedback as well as detailed assessments compiled during City Manager Bailon’s six-month review, conducted by Nash Consulting, which terminated its contract with the city in December of 2023. Schaefer’s lawsuit claims that the city has a responsibility under the PRA to release these records, even if portions of the records may be redacted to address legitimate privacy concerns. In his complaint, Schaefer contends that the city’s blanket application of exemptions denies residents insight into government performance and accountability.
Plaintiff’s Concerns on Public Interest and Transparency
In addition to pursuing full disclosure of the evaluation records, Schaefer’s complaint raises concerns about the city’s interpretation of PRA exemptions. Schaefer asserts that the city improperly cited privacy and deliberative process exemptions as justification for withholding the records, arguing that these exemptions were not intended to protect the performance evaluations of high-level public employees from scrutiny.
“The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created,” Schaefer notes in the complaint, quoting Washington’s PRA. He contends that the public’s right to know about the performance of senior public officials is paramount, especially given the accountability expected of a city manager who serves as Burien’s top administrator.
Requests for Relief and Scheduled Proceedings
Schaefer’s lawsuit calls for the court to issue a “show cause” order, requiring Burien to justify its refusal to release the records. He is seeking a court declaration that the city violated the PRA and is requesting penalties of up to $100 per day for each record allegedly withheld, as well as recovery of legal costs associated with the lawsuit. Schaefer is representing himself in the case.
According to a case schedule filed with the court, the case is set for trial on Nov. 3, 2025. Schaefer’s lawsuit underscores growing public scrutiny over transparency issues, particularly regarding access to records related to government performance and decision-making.
City of Burien’s Stance
We reached out to the City of Burien for comment, and they told us this was the first they’d heard of this lawsuit.
“At this time, the City of Burien has still not been officially served, so this is the first we are seeing any of these documents,” the City told The B-Town Blog on Friday, Nov. 1.
The City also said that its policy is to not comment on pending litigation, and no further statements regarding the exemptions cited in the public records response have been issued.
Burien City Manager Bailon responded to questions about Charles Schaefer’s recent actions, and noted a challenging dynamic.
“I cannot speak to Charles Schaefer’s motives or his desire, if any, to work collaboratively with city staff,” Bailon told The B-Town Blog. “It may be helpful to consider a recent social media post from Schaefer: ‘I want them [council majority and city manager] to be as miserable as they are trying to make the homeless in Burien.’”
This lawsuit isn’t the first time Schaefer has had issues with the City, as he has had several disagreements with Bailon, was removed as Chair of the Planning Commission and more – read our extensive previous coverage here.
The City of Burien is withholding vital information about City Manager Bailon’s performance, and we have a right to know! A precedent case from Spokane, WA confirms that a city manager’s evaluation is a matter of public interest. Just like in Spokane, we need this information to hold our city manager accountable and ensure they are effectively serving our community.
This isn’t just about transparency, it’s about our right to know how our government is functioning. The City owes us this information, and our city must comply with the law
What I care about is how the City functions not his attendance record or how he hurts someone’s feeling as a boss. Burien is the same as a complex business environment, under his watch the budget and appearance of the City has improved and tough decisions have been made. He was hired to manage and he runs a tight ship, there will always be disgruntled citizens who just need something to do.
Vindictive and self serving actions like this place unwarranted burden upon City staff that should be performing duties that serve (all) residents. Since Charlie no longer has an encampment at the Courthouse to enable and meddle in it seems this is just another pet peeve to pass the time.
….. So this guy wishes for the council and manager to experience the same hardship that he perceives the council is causing specifically to the homeless? … What an excellent homeless advocate he is… not to mention his general sense of discontent with local governance & desire for retribution…. a diamond in the ruff.
@John O, Exactly to everything you commented!
How long is this guy going to hold his grudge against the City and a matter of fact the people of Burien for losing his job?! Don’t these lawsuits against the City cost them/us money and time? SMH!
I understand that we the people of Burien have every right to know what the City is doing for us and to see the records… but come on how long has it been since this person was removed from the position of the CPC, isn’t it time to move on with your life, give up on the “I’ll get you back” attitude? There are more important things in life to worry about, grow up people!
Louis and John, your attempts to discredit Charles by resorting to personal attacks and irrelevant arguments are unproductive.
The City of Burien is legally obligated to release the city manager’s performance evaluation. I made the same request and was denied. Court precedent, like the Spokane case, clearly establishes that performance evaluations of public officials are public records.
By continuing to obstruct access to these records, the City is violating the law and eroding public trust. Transparency is crucial for a functioning democracy, and we, the public, have a right to hold our government accountable.
You and Charlie portay your efforts as some form of crusade for justice but it reeks of vindictive narcissistic behavior for information that’s a year and a half old. Carrying a grudge for that long is extremely weird and the information you seek will serve what purpose other than wasting City time for nothing but selfishness.
One could say he made himself look this way. Do you believe he is trying to “work out anything” with the Burien council by doing this? Whats the end goal here? I win, you lose, scenario? Its a no win situation lead by emotion and revenge. I’m not going to bring up the long history of this individual and the events that took place with him and the Burien council either. This is an old issue and he is just continuing it with another headline, in general.. people can lose their credibility in the public eye by repeated actions that lack merit and I think you can agree that… whether we agree or disagree with this specific scenario or not. (which is ok too)
I believe in making homeless have mandatory housing But untill that law in Acts one day ,they do also have rights.Be kind to each other.
Some here are playing classic shoot the messenger. Regardless of what you may think of him, you should agree about transparency. On that point, he is doing what most will no longer will or should do. Be grateful there are still people like him left, if you still believe in small d democracy.
Public officials do not have the right to absolute privacy in these matters. Especially ones that are appointed. If they don’t understand that goes with the territory before they accept the position, that by itself demonstrates a bad fit. The city chose not to devote staff to that request and they are being called out for it.
Some here are not playing shoot the messenger. Its ok to disagree with someone, no? What I clearly understand is who the plaintiff is, his actions, and his claims… I do not agree or stand by this individual’s actions. I will agree of course (in general) on transparency when its needed.
Cognitive dissonance, where their beliefs clash with facts. A person with cognitive dissonance might selectively acknowledge information that confirms their views while ignoring or dismissing contradictory evidence. This can stem from strong ideological commitments, emotional investment in their beliefs, or social influences. Such a mindset can hinder open-mindedness and critical thinking, leading to a distorted perception of reality.
Exactly cognitive dissonance, Charlie and his cohorts would stand within the Courthouse encampment surrounded by human suffering and filth, and all the while exclaiming how they support it.
You accept the premise of transparency, but do not think it is needed here? I think the cognitive dissonance is in the clash of your perceptions.
Not at all, due to everything I’ve already mentioned above. Also there is absolutely no reason for his request, nothing to gain. Stopwasting time & tax dollars
@John O—-I AGREE with you!