EPHRATA - Grant County is facing a possible $20,000 fine for withholding public records from a former employee.

Chelan County Superior Court Judge John Bridges explained the penalty in a letter to Grant County.

Cathleen Neils, a former Grant County Prosecutor's Office administrative assistant, filed the civil suit in Chelan County.

The case revolves around a July 2009 public records request Neils made for "any reports from law enforcement involving Cathleen D. Neils ... beginning Jan. 1, 2009 to the present date," according to the complaint.

Neils was accused of theft and false reporting in two separate reports by the Ephrata police, according to court records. Her former boss, Prosecutor Angus Lee alleged she stole money by falsifying the time she was paid to work. In the second case, a woman accused Neils of providing a false report to the sheriff's office regarding a protection order.

Public Records Officer Missy McKnight responded to the request, stating it would be delayed because she was having surgery. Since she was working part-time, the request wouldn't be processed until Sept. 29, 2009, according to court records.

The prosecutor's office denied the request, stating the reports were part of an open investigation, according to court records.

Neils' attorney Steven Lacy argued the claim was "disingenuous," pointing out the prosecutor's office received the first report on June 3 and waited until Sept. 14 to send it to the state attorney general's office. The attorney general's office declined to do anything with it. The other report, received on Sept. 21, didn't show any action taken on it.

Judith Endejan, the attorney representing the county, argued Neils' record request was dealt with the same way as other cases.

"(The county) believes that prosecutor's have the legal right to not disclose records in their files if the prosecutor is acting consistent with his duties, which in this case, involved a charging decision regarding a former disgruntled employee," she stated at the time of Bridges initial decision. "Further, under a court of appeals decision the (public records act) does not provide a remedy for requesters who do not have to sue to get the records because they obtain them through other government sources."

The county gave the records to Neils on Oct. 21, 2010, according to court records.

Bridges wrote the initial delay between the date of the request and the Sept. 29 response was not done in bad faith.

"Here, the court is mindful of the budget constraints befalling county government and the impact those monetary issues have upon county employees and their ever-increasing employment responsibilities," he wrote. "However, in the arena of (the public records act,) the delay in responding to plaintiff's request occasioned because no other person was available to either cover or assist the agency representative is problematical under the time parameters to respond."

Bridges ruled after Sept. 29, 2009 until Oct. 21, 2010 had no justification, according to the letter. He set the penalty at $10 per day for the first 60 day period and at $50 per day for the 388 days between Sept. 30, 2009 and Oct. 21, 2010. The total equals $20,000.

Endejan stated she wasn't authorized to speak on the case.

Lee responded by stating some legitimate appellate issues need to be considered before the county decides whether to appeal the decision.

"Specifically, we would ask the court of appeals to address the impact of evidence that the requestor acted in bad faith by lying to a court about prior possession of the requested records before the request was made," Lee stated. "We would also be arguing that a requestor should not be awarded fees when there was no need to bring the lawsuit because she had already received the requested records."

Lacy declined to comment on the case.