 Office of the ATTORNEY GENERAL GREG ABBOTT | |
|
February 3, 2003 Mr. Brad Norton
OR2003-0709 Dear Mr. Norton: You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 175922. The Austin Police Department (the "department") received a request for seven categories of information regarding the possible consolidation of the Park Police and the City Marshall's Office with the department. The department has released some of the requested information to the requestor. You claim, however, that other responsive information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.101, 552.107, 552.111, 552.117, and 552.136 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted representative sample of information.(1) Initially, we note that one of the submitted documents is subject to section 552.022 of the Government Code, which provides in pertinent part as follows: (a) Without limiting the amount or kind of information that is public information under this chapter, the following categories of information are public information and not excepted from required disclosure under this chapter unless they are expressly confidential under other law: . . . (5) all working papers, research material, and information used to estimate the need for or expenditure of public funds or taxes by a governmental body, on completion of the estimate[.] Gov't Code § 552.022(a)(1), (5). The document we have marked consists of a completed estimate regarding the need for or expenditure of public funds by the department. You claim that this document is excepted as agency memoranda under section 552.111 of the Government Code. Section 552.111 is a discretionary exception to disclosure that protects the governmental body's interests and is therefore not other law that makes information expressly confidential for purposes of section 552.022(a). See Open Records Decision No. 473 (1987) (governmental body may waive predecessor to section 552.111); see also Open Records Decision No. 665 at 2 n.5 (2000) (discretionary exceptions generally). Therefore, the department may not withhold the document that is subject to section 552.022 under section 552.111 of the Government Code. As you raise no other exception to the disclosure of this document, it must be released to the requestor. We will now address your arguments against disclosure with respect to the remaining submitted information. You claim that some of the submitted information is subject to the attorney-client privilege and must therefore be withheld under sections 552.101 and 552.107 of the Government Code. We note that this office has determined that "if in the open records ruling process the attorney-client privilege is asserted under section 552.101, this office shall consider it an assertion of the more specific section 552.107(1) exception." Open Records Decision No. 676 at 2-3 (2002). Section 552.107(1) of the Government Code protects information coming within the attorney-client privilege. When asserting the attorney-client privilege, a governmental body has the burden of providing the necessary facts to demonstrate the elements of the privilege in order to withhold the information at issue. Open Records Decision No. 676 at 6-7 (2002). First, a governmental body must demonstrate that the information constitutes or documents a communication. Id. at 7. Second, the communication must have been made "for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services" to the client governmental body. Tex. R. Evid. 503(b)(1). The privilege does not apply when an attorney or representative is involved in some capacity other than that of providing or facilitating professional legal services to the client governmental body. In re Texas Farmers Ins. Exch., 990 S.W.2d 337, 340 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1999, orig. proceeding) (attorney-client privilege does not apply if attorney acting in capacity other than that of attorney). Governmental attorneys often act in capacities other than that of professional legal counsel, such as administrators, investigators, or managers. Thus, the mere fact that a communication involves an attorney for the government does not demonstrate this element. Third, the privilege applies only to communications between or among clients, client representatives, lawyers, and lawyer representatives. Tex. R. Evid. 503(b)(1)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E). Thus, a governmental body must inform this office of the identities and capacities of the individuals to whom each communication at issue has been made. Lastly, the attorney-client privilege applies only to a confidential communication, id. 503(b)(1), meaning one that was "not intended to be disclosed to third persons other than those to whom disclosure is made in furtherance of the rendition of professional legal services to the client or those reasonably necessary for the transmission of the communication." Id. 503(a)(5). Whether a communication meets this definition depends on the intent of the parties involved at the time the information was communicated. Osborne v. Johnson, 954 S.W.2d 180, 184 (Tex. App.--Waco 1997, no writ). Moreover, because the client may elect to waive the privilege at any time, a governmental body must explain that the confidentiality of a communication has been maintained. Section 552.107(1) generally excepts an entire communication that is demonstrated to be protected by the attorney-client privilege unless otherwise waived by the governmental body. See Huie v. DeShazo, 922 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. 1996) (privilege extends to entire communication, including facts contained therein). Based on our review of your arguments and the e-mail messages you seek to withhold under section 552.107, we agree that most of these e-mail messages reflect confidential attorney-client communications made in furtherance of the rendition of legal services to the client. Accordingly, we conclude that the department may withhold the e-mail messages we have marked pursuant to section 552.107(1) of the Government Code.(2) We note, however, that you have failed to identify one of the parties involved in one of the e-mail communications you seek to withhold under section 552.107. See Open Records Decision No. 676 at 8 (2002) (governmental body must inform this office of identities and capacities of individuals to whom each communication at issue has been made; this office cannot necessarily assume that communication was made only among categories of individuals identified in Rule 503). Thus, we find that you have failed to demonstrate the applicability of the attorney-client privilege to this e-mail message, and it may not be withheld under section 552.107. Section 552.111 of the Government Code excepts from disclosure "an interagency or intraagency memorandum or letter that would not be available by law to a party in litigation with the agency." In Open Records Decision No. 615 (1993), this office reexamined the predecessor to the section 552.111 exception in light of the decision in Texas Department of Public Safety v. Gilbreath, 842 S.W.2d 408 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, no writ), and held that section 552.111 excepts only those internal communications consisting of advice, recommendations, opinions, and other material reflecting the policymaking processes of the governmental body. City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351, 364 (Tex. 2000); Arlington Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Texas Attorney Gen., 37 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. App.--Austin 2001, no pet.). An agency's policymaking functions do not encompass internal administrative or personnel matters; disclosure of information relating to such matters will not inhibit free discussion among agency personnel as to policy issues. Open Records Decision No. 615 at 5-6 (1993). Additionally, section 552.111 does not generally except from disclosure purely factual information that is severable from the opinion portions of internal memoranda. Arlington Indep. Sch. Dist., 37 S.W.3d at 160; Open Records Decision No. 615 at 4-5 (1993). The preliminary draft of a policymaking document that has been released or is intended for release in final form is excepted from disclosure in its entirety under section 552.111 because such a draft necessarily represents the advice, recommendations, or opinions of the drafter as to the form and content of the final document. Open Records Decision No. 559 at 2 (1990). After reviewing the information at issue, we have determined that a portion thereof reflects advice, recommendations, or opinions regarding the department's policymaking processes. This information, which we have marked, may be withheld under section 552.111. You argue that the requested records contain social security numbers of peace officers that must be withheld under section 552.117 of the Government Code and an e-mail address of a member of the public that must be withheld under section 552.136 of the Government Code. The submitted documents, however, to do not contain any such information. Thus, the department may not withhold any of the submitted information under section 552.117 or section 552.136. To summarize: (1) we have marked the information that may be withheld under section 552.107(1); and (2) we have marked the information that may be withheld under section 552.111. The remaining submitted information must be released to the requestor. This letter ruling is limited to the particular records at issue in this request and limited to the facts as presented to us; therefore, this ruling must not be relied upon as a previous determination regarding any other records or any other circumstances. This ruling triggers important deadlines regarding the rights and responsibilities of the governmental body and of the requestor. For example, governmental bodies are prohibited from asking the attorney general to reconsider this ruling. Gov't Code § 552.301(f). If the governmental body wants to challenge this ruling, the governmental body must appeal by filing suit in Travis County within 30 calendar days. Id. § 552.324(b). In order to get the full benefit of such an appeal, the governmental body must file suit within 10 calendar days. Id. § 552.353(b)(3), (c). If the governmental body does not appeal this ruling and the governmental body does not comply with it, then both the requestor and the attorney general have the right to file suit against the governmental body to enforce this ruling. Id. § 552.321(a). If this ruling requires the governmental body to release all or part of the requested information, the governmental body is responsible for taking the next step. Based on the statute, the attorney general expects that, within 10 calendar days of this ruling, the governmental body will do one of the following three things: 1) release the public records; 2) notify the requestor of the exact day, time, and place that copies of the records will be provided or that the records can be inspected; or 3) notify the requestor of the governmental body's intent to challenge this letter ruling in court. If the governmental body fails to do one of these three things within 10 calendar days of this ruling, then the requestor should report that failure to the attorney general's Open Government Hotline, toll free, at 877/673-6839. The requestor may also file a complaint with the district or county attorney. Id. § 552.3215(e). If this ruling requires or permits the governmental body to withhold all or some of the requested information, the requestor can appeal that decision by suing the governmental body. Id. § 552.321(a); Texas Department of Public Safety v. Gilbreath, 842 S.W.2d 408,411 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, no writ). Please remember that under the Act the release of information triggers certain procedures for costs and charges to the requestor. If records are released in compliance with this ruling, be sure that all charges for the information are at or below the legal amounts. Questions or complaints about over-charging must be directed to Hadassah Schloss at the Texas Building and Procurement Commission at 512/475-2497. If the governmental body, the requestor, or any other person has questions or comments about this ruling, they may contact our office. We note that a third party may challenge this ruling by filing suit seeking to withhold information from a requestor. Gov't Code § 552.325. Although there is no statutory deadline for contacting us, the attorney general prefers to receive any comments within 10 calendar days of the date of this ruling. Sincerely, Karen A. Eckerle
c: Mr. Tony Conners
Footnotes 1. We assume that the "representative sample" of records submitted to this office is truly representative of the requested records as a whole. See Open Records Decision Nos. 499 (1988), 497 (1988). This open records letter does not reach, and therefore does not authorize the withholding of, any other requested records to the extent that those records contain substantially different types of information than that submitted to this office. 2. As we are able to make this determination, we need not address your section 552.111 claim with respect to these e-mail messages. POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |