Gainesville officials violated the state’s Open Records Act when they refused to provide The Times with information tied to an investigation of former City Manager Bryan Shuler, a Hall County judge has decided.

In a ruling filed Friday, Judge Bonnie Chessher Oliver gave Gainesville officials 10 days to provide The Times with an unedited copy of an anonymous letter that accused Shuler of sexually harassing two city employees.

Sam Harben Jr., who represented the city in the suit, said any decision to appeal Oliver’s ruling would be left to the Gainesville City Council. If the council chooses to appeal, Harben said he would file the appeal next week.

The letter at the center of the suit, sent to then-Assistant City Manager Kip Padgett and Human Resources Director Joan Sheffield on Nov. 4, resulted in an investigation and Shuler’s subsequent resignation.

When The Times requested the letter, the city provided it but removed the names of the two city employees named in the letter as Shuler’s alleged victims.

In defending the stance that the names legally could be removed from the letter, the city cited an exemption to the state’s Open Records Act that allows governments to withhold "medical or veterinary records and similar files, the disclosure of which would be an invasion of personal privacy."

On Friday, Oliver ruled that the employees’ names do not fall under that exemption of the state law.

"Without the names of the two women, no further investigation is possible and the purpose of the Open Records Act is frustrated," Oliver wrote. "... no privacy rights can justify the suppression of information, or in this case the identity of a source of information, which is of public concern."

Despite Friday’s outcome, Harben said the city’s position had not changed.

"Our only purpose was to try to avoid personal embarrassment to two city employees who are clearly innocent," Harben said.

Oliver ruled that even if the allegations against Shuler were untrue, as city officials contend, the complete letter still is a public document. Making the names public, the judge wrote, would allow The Times to investigate how the government handled the allegations.

"... the allegations of sexual harassment are unsubstantiated; the fact that the two women have information about how the government dealt with allegations of sexual harassment is not," she wrote.

Before the newspaper filed suit, the city offered to give The Times the unedited letter with the stipulation that the newspaper promise not to publish the women’s names without their permission.

"I want to be clear that we have never been opposed to The Times interviewing the ladies in order to explore how the city has handled the complaint," Harben said.

The Times’ publisher, Dennis Stockton, said the lawsuit was about the newspaper’s ability to gain access to documents without government officials dictating what the newspaper could do with them.

"We never wanted to go to court against the city," Stockton said. "We tried for weeks to make city officials and their attorneys see that their position violated the Open Records Law. The city agreed to release the information to us if it could dictate how we would use it, which was a level of censorship we would not accept."

The judge did not, however, rule that the city should pay the newspaper’s attorneys’ fees. The Times requested the fees as part of the lawsuit, claiming that city officials were not substantially justified in refusing to provide the unedited letter.

Oliver ruled that the city was justified in believing parts of the document should be private.

"For one thing, The City was faced with what they see as a very real conflict between their own sexual harassment policy and the Open Records Act," Oliver wrote. "For another, The City only redacted the names because it felt that they were inconsequential. While this Court disagrees with that conclusion, there was a substantial basis for it."

Harben said the city was pleased that Oliver did not force the city to pay The Times’ legal fees incurred in the suit.

"It is still our position that we hope The Times will not see fit to print their names and to further exploit this matter," Harben said.