 Office of the ATTORNEY GENERAL GREG ABBOTT | |
|
August 5, 2003 Ms. Sally Clark Farris
OR2003-5428 Dear Ms. Farris: You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 185403. The City of San Antonio (the "city") received two requests for, among other items, the "name and title of the [c]ity ordinance, directive or authority which excuses the [c]ity from creating the position of on-site Program Manager," the "name and title of the person responsible" for preparing a specified questionnaire, and the "[c]ity ordinance, directive or authority which excused the [c]ity from the requirements of AD 4.2 that requires job descriptions for [c]ity positions." You indicate that some responsive information does not exist.(1) You also indicate that the city has or will provide the requestor with some responsive information to the extent that it exists. You claim, however, that the remaining requested information, which is entirely responsive to the second request received by the city, is excepted from disclosure pursuant to section 552.103 of the Government Code. We have considered the exception you claim. We have also considered comments submitted by the requestor. See Gov't Code § 552.304 (providing that person may submit comments stating why information should or should not be released). We note that section 552.301(e) of the Government Code requires that a governmental body that requests an attorney general decision under section 552.301(a) must, within a reasonable time, but not later than the fifteenth business day after the date of receiving the written request, submit to the attorney general, among other items, a copy of the specific information requested, or representative samples of it, labeled to indicate which exceptions to disclosure apply to which parts of the copy. See Gov't Code § 552.301(e). To date, the city has not submitted to us any information that is responsive to the second request for information and that it seeks to withhold from disclosure. Thus, we find that the city failed to comply with section 552.301 of the Government Code in requesting this decision from us with respect to the second request for information received by the city. Because the city failed to comply with the procedural requirements of section 552.301, all of the information that is responsive to the second request for information is now presumed public. See Gov't Code § 552.302; see also Hancock v. State Bd. of Ins., 797 S.W.2d 379 (Tex. App.--Austin 1990, no writ); City of Houston v. Houston Chronicle Publ'g Co., 673 S.W.2d 316, 323 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, no writ); Open Records Decision No. 319 (1982). The city must demonstrate a compelling interest in order to overcome the presumption that this information is now public. See id. Normally, a compelling interest is demonstrated when some other source of law makes the requested information confidential or when third party interests are at stake. See Open Records Decision No. 150 at 2 (1977). Although the city claims that the information that is responsive to the second request for information is excepted from disclosure pursuant to section 552.103 of the Government Code, we note that this particular exception to disclosure is a discretionary exception to disclosure under the Act that does not constitute a compelling interest that is sufficient to overcome the presumption that the information at issue is now public.(2) Accordingly, we conclude that the city may not withhold any portion of the information that is responsive to the second request for information under section 552.103 of the Government Code. Consequently, the city must release the entirety of that information 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, Ronald J. Bounds
c: Mr. Kenneth M. Lee
Footnotes 1. We note that it is implicit in several provisions of the Public Information Act (the "Act") that the Act applies only to information already in existence. See Gov't Code §§ 552.002, .021, .227, .351. The Act does not require a governmental body to prepare new information in response to a request. See Attorney General Opinion H-90 (1973); see also Open Records Decision Nos. 572 at 1 (1990), 555 at 1-2 (1990), 452 at 2-3 (1986), 416 at 5 (1984), 342 at 3 (1982), 87 (1975); Economic Opportunities Dev. Corp. of San Antonio v. Bustamante, 562 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. Civ. App. -San Antonio 1978, writ dism'd). A governmental body must only make a good faith effort to relate a request to information which it holds. See Open Records Decision No. 561 at 8 (1990). 2. Discretionary exceptions are intended to protect only the interests of the governmental body, as distinct from exceptions which are intended to protect information deemed confidential by law or the interests of third parties. See, e.g., Open Records Decision Nos. 630 at 4 (1994) (governmental body may waive attorney-client privilege, section 552.107(1)), 551 (1990) (statutory predecessor to section 552.103 serves only to protect governmental body's position in litigation and does not itself make information confidential), 522 at 4 (1989) (discretionary exceptions in general), 473 (1987) (governmental body may waive statutory predecessor to section 552.111); see also Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Dallas Morning News, 4 S.W.3d 469, 475-76 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1999, no pet.) (governmental body may waive section 552.103). Discretionary exceptions, therefore, do not constitute "other law" that makes information confidential. POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |