 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT | |
|
February 8, 2006 Ms. Sharon Alexander
OR2006-01307 Dear Ms. Alexander: 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# 242141. The Texas Department of Transportation ("TxDOT") received a request for sign permits along a particular section of I-40. You claim that a portion of the submitted information is excepted from disclosure under section 552.101 of the Government Code. You also assert that release of a portion of the submitted information may implicate the proprietary interests of a third party. Pursuant to section 552.305 of the Government Code, you were required to notify Lamar Advertising ("Lamar") of the request and of its opportunity to submit comments to this office explaining why the submitted information should be withheld from disclosure. See Gov't Code § 552.305 (permitting interested third party to submit to attorney general reasons why requested information should not be released); Open Records Decision No. 542 (1990) (determining that statutory predecessor to section 552.305 permits governmental body to rely on interested third party to raise and explain applicability of exception to disclosure in certain circumstances). We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted information.(1) You claim that the identity of the landowner contained within the submitted permit application is protected by privacy. Section 552.101 of the Government Code excepts "information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision," and encompasses the doctrine of common law privacy. Common law privacy protects information if (1) the information contains highly intimate or embarrassing facts, the publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person, and (2) the information is not of legitimate concern to the public. Indus. Found. v. Tex. Indus. Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668, 685 (Tex. 1976). The type of information considered intimate and embarrassing by the Texas Supreme Court in Industrial Foundation included information relating to sexual assault, pregnancy, mental or physical abuse in the workplace, illegitimate children, psychiatric treatment of mental disorders, attempted suicide, and injuries to sexual organs. 540 S.W.2d at 683. Prior decisions of this office have determined that personal financial information not related to a transaction between an individual and a governmental body is generally not subject to a legitimate public interest and is therefore protected by common law privacy. See Open Records Decision No. 600 (1992). However, this office has also determined that the essential facts about a financial transaction between an individual and a governmental body generally are subject to a legitimate public interest. See Open Decision Nos. 545 (1990) (financial information pertaining to receipt of funds from governmental body or debts owed to governmental body not protected by common law privacy), 523 (1989). Whether financial information is subject to a legitimate public interest and therefore not protected by common law privacy must be determined on a case-by-case basis. See Open Records Decision No. 373 (1983). TxDOT contends that the information identifying the landowner in the submitted permit application is personal financial information unrelated to a financial transaction with a governmental body. Upon review, we agree that information identifying the landowner is personal financial information that is not subject to a legitimate public interest. We therefore determine that TxDOT must withhold the information identifying the landowner in the submitted permit application, which you have marked, pursuant to section 552.101 of the Government Code in conjunction with common law privacy. 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); 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 Office of the Attorney General 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. 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, José Vela III
c: John Ventura
Footnotes 1. We assume that the "representative sample" of records submitted to this office is truly representative of the requested records as a whole. See Open Records Decision Nos. 499 (1988), 497 (1988). This open records letter does not reach, and therefore does not authorize the withholding of, any other requested records to the extent that those records contain substantially different types of information than that submitted to this office. POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB:WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |