 Office of the ATTORNEY GENERAL GREG ABBOTT | |
|
May 8, 2003 Mr. Thomas H. Arnold
OR2003-3117 Dear Mr. Arnold: You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 180797. The Texarkana Police Department (the "department") received a request for all memos written by Police Chief Danny Alexander from October 20, 2000 to the present. You claim that some of the requested information is excepted from disclosure under section 552.101 of the Government Code. We assume that the department has released the remaining requested information to the requestor. If it has not, it must do so at this time. See Gov't Code §§ 552.021, .301, .302; Open Records Decision No. 664 (2000) (concluding that section 552.221(a) requires that information not excepted from disclosure must be released as soon as possible under circumstances). We have considered your arguments and have reviewed the submitted information. You contend that some information is subject to the Medical Practice Act (the "MPA"). The disclosure of medical records is governed by the MPA, as codified at subtitle B of title 3 of the Occupations Code. See Occ. Code § 151.001. Section 159.002 of the MPA provides in relevant part: (b) A record of the identity, diagnosis, evaluation, or treatment of a patient by a physician that is created or maintained by a physician is confidential and privileged and may not be disclosed except as provided by this chapter. Id. § 159.002(b). This office has concluded that the protection afforded by section 159.002 extends only to records created by either a physician or someone under the supervision of a physician. See Open Records Decision Nos. 487 (1987), 370 (1983), 343 (1982). After reviewing the information at issue, we conclude that none of it is subject to the provisions of the MPA. Section 552.101 of the Government Code excepts from required public disclosure "information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision." This exception protects information that another statute makes confidential. You claim that the submitted information is confidential under section 143.089 of the Local Government Code. Section 143.089 provides for the existence of two different types of personnel files relating to a police officer, including one that must be maintained as part of the officer's civil service file and another that the police department may maintain for its own internal use. See Local Gov't Code § 143.089(a), (g). The officer's civil service file must contain certain specified items, including commendations, periodic evaluations by the police officer's supervisor, and documents relating to any misconduct in any instance in which the department took disciplinary action against the officer under chapter 143 of the Local Government Code. Id. § 143.089(a)(1)-(2). Chapter 143 prescribes the following types of disciplinary actions: removal, suspension, demotion, and uncompensated duty. Id. §§ 143.051-.055. Information relating to alleged misconduct or disciplinary action taken must be removed from the police officer's civil service file if the police department determines that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the charge of misconduct or that the disciplinary action was taken without just cause. See id. § 143.089(b)-(c). Subsection (g) of section 143.089 authorizes the police department to maintain for its own use a separate and independent internal personnel file relating to a police officer. Section 143.089(g) provides as follows: A fire or police department may maintain a personnel file on a fire fighter or police officer employed by the department for the department's use, but the department may not release any information contained in the department file to any agency or person requesting information relating to a fire fighter or police officer. The department shall refer to the director or the director's designee a person or agency that requests information that is maintained in the fire fighter's or police officer's personnel file. Id. § 143.089(g). In City of San Antonio v. Texas Attorney General, 851 S.W.2d 946 (Tex. App.--Austin 1993, writ denied), the court addressed a request for information contained in a police officer's personnel file maintained by the police department for its use and the applicability of section 143.089(g) to that file. The records included in the departmental personnel file related to complaints against the police officer for which no disciplinary action was taken. The court determined that section 143.089(g) made these records confidential. See City of San Antonio, 851 S.W.2d at 949 (concluding that "the legislature intended to deem confidential the information maintained by the . . . police department for its own use under subsection (g)"). The court stated that the provisions of section 143.089 governing the content of the civil service file reflect "a legislative policy against disclosure of unsubstantiated claims of misconduct made against police officers and fire fighters, except with an individual's written consent." Id.; see also City of San Antonio v. San Antonio Express-News, 47 S.W.3d 556 (Tex. App. - San Antonio 2000, no pet. h.) (restricting confidentiality under section 143.089(g) to "information reasonably related to a police officer's or fire fighter's employment relationship"); Attorney General Opinion JC-0257 at 6-7 (2000) (addressing functions of section 143.089(a) and (g) files). You inform us that the City of Texarkana has adopted a civil service system for its police officers under chapter 143 of the Local Government Code. You contend that none of the submitted information is subject to section 143.089(a) of the Local Government Code. You inform us that all of the information in question is contained in the file maintained by the police department for its own internal use and therefore is confidential under section 143.089(g). Based on your representations and our review of the information, we agree that this information is confidential in its entirety under section 143.089(g) of the Local Government Code and therefore is excepted from disclosure under section 552.101 of the Government Code as information made confidential by law. 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, Kristen Bates
c: Ms. Lisa Bose McDermott
POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |