 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT | |
|
May 6, 2005 Ms. Laura C. Rodriguez
OR2005-03940 Dear Ms. Rodriguez: 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# 223618. The Comal Independent School District (the "district"), which you represent, received a request for four categories of information related to complaints and investigations in cooperation with the Texas Education Agency (the "TEA") regarding district board members. You state that the district has redacted student identifying information pursuant to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ("FERPA"), section 1232(g) of title 20 of the United States Code.(1) You also state that you have no responsive information regarding categories 1 and 3 of the request. We note that the Act does not require a governmental body to disclose information that did not exist at the time the request was received. Econ. Opportunities Dev. Corp. v. Bustamante, 562 S.W.2d 266 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1978, writ dism'd); Open Records Decision No. 452 at 3 (1986). You claim that the remaining requested information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.103 and 552.116 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted information. We have also considered comments submitted by the requestor. See Gov't Code § 552.304 (providing that interested party may submit comments stating why information should or should not be released). Section 552.103 of the Government Code provides in relevant part 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 government 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 is pending or reasonably anticipated on the date the government body receives the request for information, and (2) the information at issue is related to that litigation. See Univ. of Tex. Law Sch. v. Tex. Legal Found., 958 S.W.2d 479, 481 (Tex. App.--Austin 1997, no pet.); see also 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 district must meet both prongs of this test for the information at issue to be excepted from disclosure under section 552.103. 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). Whether litigation is reasonably anticipated must be determined on a case-by-case basis. See id. 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. See Open Records Decision No. 555 (1990); see also 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. See Open Records Decision No. 361 (1983). You assert that the district believes it will be a party to litigation due to the fact that "[a]n individual who identified themselves [sic] as a member of the [district's school board] specified that they were [sic] gathering information for the purposes of taking legal action against the district." You further state that "it appears that an attorney contacted a parent in order to obtain student information on her child." After careful review of your arguments and the submitted information, however, we conclude that you have not provided any concrete evidence that litigation is reasonably anticipated in this matter. Therefore, none of the submitted information may be withheld under section 552.103 of the Government Code. Section 552.116 of the Government Code provides as follows: (a) An audit working paper of an audit of the state auditor or the auditor of a state agency or institution of higher education as defined by Section 61.003, Education Code, is excepted from [required public disclosure]. If information in an audit working paper is also maintained in another record, that other record is not excepted from [required public disclosure] by this section. (b) In this section: (1) 'Audit' means an audit authorized or required by a statute of this state or the United States and includes an investigation. (2) 'Audit working paper' includes all information, documentary or otherwise, prepared or maintained in conducting an audit or preparing an audit report, including: (A) intra-agency and interagency communications; and (B) drafts of the audit report or portions of those drafts. Gov't Code § 552.116. You state that the submitted information, which consists of TEA correspondence to the district, was prepared by the TEA in conjunction with an ongoing special accreditation investigation of the district. We note, however, that section 552.116 is intended to protect the auditor's interests, which in this instance is the TEA. See id. Here, the submitted information is maintained by the district, the auditee. As the auditee, the district cannot assert section 552.116 in order to protect its own interest in withholding the information. We further note that the submitted correspondence merely informs the district that the TEA will be performing a special accreditation investigation, and therefore does not constitute "audit working papers" for the purposes of section 552.116 of the Government Code. See Gov't Code § 552.116(b)(2). Accordingly, section 552.116 is inapplicable and does not protect the submitted information from disclosure. As the district raises no further exceptions to disclosure, and the information is not otherwise confidential by law, the submitted information must be released. 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, upon receiving this ruling, the governmental body will either release the public records promptly pursuant to section 552.221(a) of the Government Code or file a lawsuit challenging this ruling pursuant to section 552.324 of the Government Code. If the governmental body fails to do one of these things, 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); Tex. 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, Lauren E. Kleine
c: Mr. Tom Bruce
Footnotes 1. 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). This office generally applies the same analysis under FERPA and section 552.114 of the Government Code. Open Records Decision No. 539 (1990). This office has determined that a governmental body may withhold student identifying information that is protected by FERPA and excepted from disclosure under section 552.114 of the Government Code without the necessity of requesting an attorney general decision as to those exceptions. Open Records Decision No. 634 (1995). POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB:WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |