 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT | |
 |
June 18, 2007 Mr. Ronald J. Bounds OR2007-07699 Dear Mr. Bounds: 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# 280561. The City of Corpus Christi (the "city") received two requests for information pertaining to the Earthlink WiFi Franchise Agreement. (1) You state that some of the requested information is being made available to the requestors. You claim that the submitted information is excepted from disclosure under section 552.101 of the Government Code. In correspondence to this office, Earthlink also asserts that the submitted information is excepted under sections 552.101 and 552.110 of the Government Code. See Gov't Code § 552.305(d); see also Open Records Decision No. 542 (1990) (statutory predecessor to section 552.305 permits governmental body to rely on interested third party to raise and explain applicability of exception in the Act in certain circumstances). We have reviewed the submitted arguments and the submitted information. We initially note that Earthlink seeks to withhold radio location data that the city did not submit to this office. Because the city did not submit this information, this ruling does not address that information, but instead is limited to the information submitted as responsive by the city. See Gov't Code § 552.301(e)(1)(D) (governmental body requesting decision from Attorney General must submit copy of specific information requested). Consequently, we do not address Earthlink's arguments concerning information that the city did not submit. The city asserts that the submitted information is excepted under section 552.101 of the Government Code, which excepts from disclosure "information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision." Section 552.101 encompasses information protected by other statutes. As part of the Texas Homeland Security Act, sections 418.176 through 418.182 were added to chapter 418 of the Government Code. These provisions make certain information related to terrorism confidential. Section 418.181 of the Government Code provides that "[t]hose documents or portions of documents in the possession of a governmental entity are confidential if they identify the technical details of particular vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure to an act of terrorism." The city asserts the following: [T]he submitted information describes the location of radio towers for the City's WiFi system and . . . the WiFi system is the primary source of data communication within the City and for the City's emergency responders. If the information at issue were made available to the public, such information could be adversely used by individuals who wished to do harm to the City's communications processes. These individuals could use the precise location of the towers for attacking the City's WiFi system. Once attacked, the City's critical communications WiFi systems would become compromised, thereby jeopardizing the ability of the City and its emergency responders to provide adequate public safety service to its citizenry. Based on these arguments and our review of the information at issue, we conclude that the submitted information identifies the technical details of particular vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure to an act of terrorism. See Gov't Code §421.001 (defining critical infrastructure to include "all public or private assets, systems, and functions vital to the security, governance, public health and safety, and functions vital to the state or the nation"). Therefore, the submitted information is confidential under section 418.181 of the Government Code, and the city must withhold it from disclosure under section 552.101 of the Government Code. (2) 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, James L. Coggeshall Assistant Attorney General Open Records Division JLC/jb Ref: ID# 280561 Enc. Submitted documents c: Mr. Mark Meier Information Technology Department City of Oklahoma City 100 North Walker, Suite 600 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (w/o enclosures) Mr. John Armbruster Information Communication Services Assistant Director City of St. Petersburg One Fourth Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (w/o enclosures) Mr. G. Stewart Whitehead Winstead, P.C. 401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2100 Austin, Texas 78701 (w/o enclosures)
1. The city sought and received a clarification of the information requested. See Gov't Code § 552.222
(if request for information is unclear, governmental body may ask requestor to clarify request); see also Open
Records Decision No. 31 (1974) (when presented with broad requests for information rather than for specific
records, governmental body may advise requestor of types of information available so that request may be
properly narrowed).
As we are able to resolve this under section 552.101 of the Government Code, we do not address the
remaining arguments for exception of the submitted information. POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |