Open Records Decision No. 321
August 20, 1982

	Re:  Whether records of incomplete audit of county agent on aging by Texas 
Department on Aging are available to the public

Mr. Tim Shank
Deputy Director
Texas Department on Aging
P. O. Box 12786, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas  78711

Dear Mr. Shank:

	You have requested our decision under the Open Records Act, article 6252-17a, 
V.T.C.S., as to whether records of an incomplete audit are available to the public.

	You state that the Texas Department on Aging is presently in the process of 
auditing the Harris County Area Agency on Aging.  The department contends, on the 
authority of Attorney General Opinion H-90 (1973), that all information relating to the 
audit “is excepted from disclosure until said audit is completed and made available to 
all.”  In Attorney General Opinion H-90 (1973), this office stated that:

It is our opinion that 'reports, audits, evaluations and investigations' 
do not become 'public information' until their completion, and that 
the Act does not require their disclosure in partially completed form.

	Section 6(1) of the Open Records Act provides that completed audits prepared by 
or for governmental bodies “are specifically . . . public information.”  Your argument, in 
effect, is that in light of section 6, audits which are not yet “completed” can never 
constitute public information.  We disagree.  Section 6 also provides that “[w]ithout 
limiting the meaning of other sections of this Act, the following categories of 
information are specifically made public information.”  (Emphasis added).  And one of 
the “other sections” of the act, section 3(a), provides that:

All information collected, assembled or maintained by 
governmental bodies . . . in connection with the transaction of 
official business is public information . . . with the following 
exceptions only . . . .  (Emphasis added).

	The conclusion reached in Attorney General Opinion H-90 (1973) has been 
modified by subsequent rulings.  In Open Records Decision No. 140 (1976), for example, 
this office concluded that information concerning the value of taxable property in 
specified school districts had to be made available to the public.  This information, which 
was contained in various appraisal reports, was to be used by the governor in preparing a 
required report on methods of allocating state funds to school districts.  It was argued 
that none of the information concerning field appraisal reports on the value of property 
had to be released until the governor completed his report.  But the decision concluded 
that:

the bulk of the information requested is made up of records upon 
which the Governor's report will be based, rather than constituting 
the Governor's report, which is as yet incomplete.  That is, the 
separate field reports on appraisals in various counties appear to be 
complete in themselves, and even though the information in them 
may be compiled, analyzed, corrected, adjusted, or otherwise dealt 
with in a more comprehensive report, the reports requested may be 
made public in the form in which they now exist.  In our view, the 
requested information constitutes information which has been 
collected by the Governor's office and is subject to the Open 
Records Act.  (Emphasis added).

See also Open Records Decision No. 197 (1978).

	We believe the approach to the construction of the Open Records Act which was 
in effect taken in Open Records Decision No. 140 (1976) is the correct approach.  We 
conclude, in other words, that the threshold question in each instance is whether material 
or data which is requested from a governmental body constitutes “information collected, 
assembled, or maintained by [the governmental body] pursuant to law or ordinance or in 
connection with the transaction of official business.”  If it does, the next question is 
whether it fits within any of the exceptions enumerated in section 3(a) of the act; if it 
does not come within an exception, it must be released.  The fact that information has not 
yet been put into “final” form is, in other words, not dispositive of whether it must be 
made available to the public.  To the extent that Attorney General Opinion H-90 (1973) 
concludes otherwise it is hereby overruled.

	Since you have not invoked any specific exception under section 3(a) of the Open 
Records Act, we conclude that the incomplete audit at issue here must be made available 
to the requestor without delay.

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 and
Jon Bible
Assistant Attorneys General

APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE

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