Open Records Decision No. 315
May 11, 1982

	Re:  Whether the information in personnel files of police officers may be 
withheld from public disclosure under sections 3(a)(2) or 3(a)(11) of the Open Records 
Act

Mr. David Reagan
First Assistant
Office of City Attorney
P. O. Box 1152
Midland, Texas  79702

Dear Mr. Reagan:

	You have requested our decision under the Open Records Act, article 6252-17a, 
V.T.C.S., as to whether certain information in the personnel files of three police officers 
of the Midland Police Department is subject to disclosure.  An attorney has requested the 
following information regarding two of the officers:  length of time employed by the 
Midland Police Department; dates of any commendations or promotions; and dates of 
and reasons for any disciplinary action.  A reporter has asked the department to confirm 
or deny whether a third officer recently received a three-day suspension.  You suggest 
that all the requested information is excepted from disclosure by sections 3(a)(2) and 
3(a)(11).

	Section 3(a)(2) excepts “information in personnel files, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”  As we said in 
Open Records Decision No. 298 (1981), this section may be invoked only when the 
information reveals “intimate details of a highly personal nature.”  See also, Open 
Records Decision Nos. 269, 260 (1981).  None of the information requested here can 
reasonably be so characterized.  We conclude that it is not excepted from disclosure by 
section 3(a)(2).

	Section 3(a)(11) excepts:

inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would 
not be available by law to a party other than one in litigation with 
the agency.

We have frequently said that section 3(a)(11) permits the withholding of advice, opinions 
and recommendations contained in inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda.  Open 
Records Decision No. 308 (1982); 273 (1981); 239 (1980).  Clearly, the length of time 
an officer has been employed, as well as the dates of any commendations or promotions, 
may not properly to deemed “advice, opinions and recommendations,” and therefore, is 
not excepted by section 3(a)(11).

	In Open Records Decision No. 106 (1975), this office considered an investigation 
report regarding a complaint of misconduct on the part of an officer of the Department of 
Public Safety.  It was held that, although the report was itself excepted by section 
3(a)(11), the “final action” taken in the matter was required to be disclosed.  The opinion, 
citing section 6(12) of the Open Records Act, which specifically makes public “final 
opinions . . . as well as orders, made in the adjudication of cases,” said that this section is 
applicable to any “final action taken on matters by an agency through its regular 
administrative processes, regardless of their formality.”  On the basis of Open Records 
Decision No. 106 (1975) and subsequent decisions construing section 3(a)(11), we 
believe that the basic factual information relevant to this disciplinary action constitutes 
public information, including the fact that disciplinary action has been taken, the dates of 
such action, the punishment assessed, all factual details about the incident which gave 
rise to the disciplinary action, and any written findings regarding the reasons for the 
action.  Any opinions furnished or recommendations made in the course of the 
investigation may be withheld under section 3(a)(11).  See Open Records Decision No. 
308 (1982).  As to the information requested here, it is our decision that none of it is 
excepted from disclosure by section 3(a)(11).

Very truly yours,

Mark White
Attorney General of Texas

John W. Fainter, Jr.
First Assistant Attorney General

Richard E. Gray III
Executive Assistant Attorney General

Prepared by Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General

APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE

Susan L. Garrison, Chairman
Jon Bible
Rick Gilpin
Patricia Hinojosa
Jim Moellinger