 Office of the ATTORNEY GENERAL GREG ABBOTT | |
|
March 10, 2003 Ms. Tamara Pitts
OR2003-1556 Dear Ms. Pitts: You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 177633. The City of Fort Worth (the "city") received a request for information relating to the requestor regarding allegations of inappropriate conduct committed by him, including affidavits, investigation reports, executive summaries, disciplinary actions, and a copy of his personnel file. You state that you have released the personnel file, disciplinary actions, and executive summaries. However, you claim that the remainder of the requested information is excepted from disclosure under section 552.103 of the Government Code. We have considered the exception you claim and reviewed the submitted information. Initially, we note that the first eleven pages of Exhibit C consist of a completed investigation. This information must be released pursuant to section 552.022(a)(1) of the Government Code, which provides in relevant part: (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: (1) a completed report, audit, evaluation, or investigation made of, for, or by a governmental body, except as provided by Section 552.108; Gov't Code § 552.022(a)(1) (emphasis added). Therefore, as prescribed by section 552.022, the completed investigation must be released unless it is confidential under other law or excepted under section 552.108. You do not raise section 552.108. Furthermore, section 552.103 of the Government Code 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 Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Dallas Morning News, 4 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1999, no pet.) (governmental body may waive section 552.103). Therefore, you may not withhold the completed investigation under section 552.103 of the Government Code. We will now address your section 552.103 argument with respect to the remainder of the submitted information. Section 552.103 of the Government Code provides as follows: (a) Information is excepted from [required public disclosure] if it is information relating to litigation of a civil or criminal nature to which the state or a political subdivision is or may be a party or to which an officer or employee of the state or a political subdivision, as a consequence of the person's office or employment, is or may be a party. . . . . (c) Information relating to litigation involving a governmental body or an officer or employee of a governmental body is excepted from disclosure under Subsection (a) only if the litigation is pending or reasonably anticipated on the date that the requestor applies to the officer for public information for access to or duplication of the information. The city has the burden of providing relevant facts and documents to show that the section 552.103(a) exception is applicable in a particular situation. The test for meeting this burden is a showing that (1) litigation is pending or reasonably anticipated, and (2) the information at issue is related to that litigation. University of Tex. Law Sch. v. Texas Legal Found., 958 S.W.2d 479, 481 (Tex. App.--Austin 1997, no pet.); Heard v. Houston Post Co., 684 S.W.2d 210, 212 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Open Records Decision No. 551 at 4 (1990). The city must meet both prongs of this test for information to be excepted under 552.103(a). To establish that litigation is reasonably anticipated, a governmental body must provide this office "concrete evidence showing that the claim that litigation may ensue is more than mere conjecture." Open Records Decision No. 452 at 4 (1986). Concrete evidence to support a claim that litigation is reasonably anticipated may include, for example, the governmental body's receipt of a letter containing a specific threat to sue the governmental body from an attorney for a potential opposing party. Open Records Decision No. 555 (1990); see Open Records Decision No. 518 at 5 (1989) (litigation must be "realistically contemplated"). On the other hand, this office has determined that if an individual publicly threatens to bring suit against a governmental body, but does not actually take objective steps toward filing suit, litigation is not reasonably anticipated. See Open Records Decision No. 331 (1982). This office has long held that "litigation" within the meaning of section 552.103 of the Government Code includes "contested cases" conducted in a quasi-judicial forum. See Open Records Decision Nos. 474 (1987), 368 (1983), 336, 301 (1982). In addition, "contested cases" conducted under the Texas Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 2001 of the Government Code, constitute "litigation" for purposes of section 552.103. See Open Records Decision Nos. 588 (1991) (concerning former State Board of Insurance proceeding), 301 (1982) (concerning hearing before Public Utilities Commission). When determining whether an administrative proceeding is conducted in a quasi-judicial forum, this office has focused on the following factors 1) whether the dispute is, for all practical purposes, litigated in an administrative proceeding where a) discovery takes place, b) evidence is heard, c) factual questions are resolved, and d) a record is made; and 2) whether the proceeding is an adjudicative forum of first jurisdiction, i.e., whether judicial review of the proceeding in district court is an appellate review and not the forum for resolving a controversy on the basis of evidence. See Open Records Decision No. 588 (1991). Upon review of your arguments, we conclude that you have not adequately demonstrated that the city's Disciplinary Appeals Board ("DAB") meets the factors discussed above for purposes of section 552.103. Therefore, the city may not withhold the remainder of the submitted information under section 552.103 and must release it 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 Dep't of Pub. 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, Jennifer E. Berry
c: Mr. Ron Hopson
POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |