 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT | |
|
June 10, 2004 Ms. JoAnn S. Wright
OR2004-4721 Dear Ms. Wright: You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under the Public Information Act (the "Act"), chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 203156. The Mansfield Independent School District (the "district"), which you represent, received a request for "all emails or letters sent to the [district] Administration or School Board Members by [seven named individuals] from Sept. 2003 to March 24, 2004 [and] a copy of all applications filed by the candidates running for the 2004 school board elections." You claim that the submitted information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.103 and 552.137 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted information. First, we note you have not submitted information concerning the applications filed by candidates for the 2004 school board elections, nor have you indicated that you seek to withhold any such information. Therefore, we assume that, to the extent this information existed on the date that the district received the request for information, it has been released to the requestor. If not, you must release it immediately. See Gov't Code §§ 552.006, .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 the circumstances). Section 552.101 excepts from disclosure "information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision."(1) This section encompasses information protected by other statutes. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 ("FERPA") provides that no federal funds will be made available under any applicable program to an educational agency or institution that releases personally identifiable information (other than directory information) contained in a student's education records to anyone but certain enumerated federal, state, and local officials and institutions, unless otherwise authorized by the student's parent. See 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(1); see also 34 C.F.R. § 99.3 (defining personally identifiable information). Under FERPA, "education records" means those records that contain information directly related to a student and are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution. See 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4)(A). Section 552.026 of the Government Code provides that "information contained in education records of an educational agency or institution" may only be released under the Act in accordance with FERPA. Information must be withheld from required public disclosure under FERPA only to the extent "reasonable and necessary to avoid personally identifying a particular student." See Open Records Decision Nos. 332 (1982), 206 (1978). Such information includes information that directly identifies a student as well as information that, if released, would allow the student's identity to be easily traced. See Open Records Decision No. 224 (1979) (finding student's handwritten comments protected under FERPA because they make identity of student easily traceable through handwriting, style of expression, or particular incidents related). The submitted information is maintained by the district and portions of the information are related to students; that information is therefore subject to FERPA. The requestor in this instance does not appear to be among the individuals or entities authorized by section 1232g(b) to receive this information. See 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(1) (listing individuals and entities to whom release of education records is authorized). Furthermore, you also have not informed us that the requestor has provided the district with written authorization from any student's parent or legal guardian in compliance with section 1232g(b)(2). See 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(2) (prescribing elements of proper written authorization by student's parent or legal guardian). We therefore conclude that the district must withhold the information that we have marked pursuant to section 552.101 and FERPA. We next address your claim under section 552.103 of the Government Code, which 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. Gov't Code § 552.103(a), (c). A governmental body 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 was pending or reasonably anticipated on the date the governmental body received the request for information, and (2) the information at issue is related to that litigation. Univ. of Tex. Law Sch. v. Tex. 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). A governmental body 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.(2) 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). Further, the fact that a potential opposing party has hired an attorney who makes a request for information does not establish that litigation is reasonably anticipated. Open Records Decision No. 361 (1983). Based on your representations and our review of the submitted information, we find you have established that the district reasonably anticipated litigation concerning the attendance zone boundaries for district schools on the date the district received the present request and that most of the submitted information relates to that anticipated litigation. Thus, we agree that the information that we have marked is excepted from disclosure under section 552.103 of the Government Code. We note, however, that once information has been obtained by all parties to the litigation through discovery or otherwise, no section 552.103(a) interest exists with respect to that information. Open Records Decision Nos. 349 (1982), 320 (1982). Thus, information that has either been obtained from or provided to the opposing parties in the anticipated litigation is not excepted from disclosure under section 552.103(a), and it must be disclosed. Further, the applicability of section 552.103(a) ends once the litigation has been concluded or is no longer anticipated. Attorney General Opinion MW-575 (1982); Open Records Decision No. 350 (1982). You next claim that the remaining submitted information may contain e-mail addresses of members of the public that are excepted from disclosure under section 552.137 of the Government Code. Section 552.137 provides: (a) Except as otherwise provided by this section, an e-mail address of a member of the public that is provided for the purpose of communicating electronically with a governmental body is confidential and not subject to disclosure under this chapter. (b) Confidential information described by this section that relates to a member of the public may be disclosed if the member of the public affirmatively consents to its release. (c) Subsection (a) does not apply to an e-mail address: (1) provided to a governmental body by a person who has a contractual relationship with the governmental body or by the contractor's agent; (2) provided to a governmental body by a vendor who seeks to contract with the governmental body or by the vendor's agent; (3) contained in a response to a request for bids or proposals, contained in a response to similar invitations soliciting offers or information relating to a potential contract, or provided to a governmental body in the course of negotiating the terms of a contract or potential contract; or (4) provided to a governmental body on a letterhead, coversheet, printed document, or other document made available to the public. (d) Subsection (a) does not prevent a governmental body from disclosing an e- mail address for any reason to another governmental body or to a federal agency. Gov't Code § 552.137. Section 552.137 requires a governmental body to withhold certain e-mail addresses of members of the public that are provided for the purpose of communicating electronically with the governmental body, unless the members of the public with whom the e-mail addresses are associated have affirmatively consented to their release. Section 552.137 does not apply to a government employee's work e-mail address or a business's general e-mail address or web address. E-mail addresses that are encompassed by subsection 552.137(c) are also not excepted from disclosure under section 552.137. We have marked the e-mail addresses that are excepted from disclosure under section 552.137(a). Unless the district has received affirmative consent for the release of these marked e-mail addresses, we conclude that it must withhold them pursuant to section 552.137(a) of the Government Code. In summary, we have marked the information that is confidential under FERPA and must be withheld under section 552.101 of the Government Code. The district may withhold the information that we have marked under section 552.103. Unless the district has received affirmative consent for the release of the e-mail addresses that we have marked, it must withhold them pursuant to section 552.137(a). 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 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, Cindy Nettles
c: Ms. Keitha Adams
Footnotes 1. The Office of the Attorney General will raise a mandatory exception like section 552.101 on behalf of a governmental body, but ordinarily will not raise other exceptions. Open Records Decision Nos. 481 (1987), 480 (1987), 470 (1987). 2. In addition, this office has concluded that litigation was reasonably anticipated when the potential opposing party took the following objective steps toward litigation: filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, see Open Records Decision No. 336 (1982); hired an attorney who made a demand for disputed payments and threatened to sue if the payments were not made promptly, see Open Records Decision No. 346 (1982); and threatened to sue on several occasions and hired an attorney, see Open Records Decision No. 288 (1981). |