December 18, 2012

Ms. Heather Silver

Assistant City Attorney

City of Dallas

1500 Marilla

Dallas, Texas 75201

OR2012-20348

Dear Ms. Silver:

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# 474897.

The City of Dallas (the "city") received a request for (1) total expenses for legal services paid for a specified case, including billed hours; (2) total expenses for legal services paid to defend four named individuals, including billed hours; (3) vehicle maintenance records during a specified time period; (4) payroll records for three named individuals; (5) complaints and litigation documents pertaining to fire alarm registration and renewal fees and fines during a specified time period; (6) all fire rescue station runs and codes on a specified date; (7) "false alarm" runs or statistics during a specified time period; (8) documents regarding compensation and board appointment for a named individual; (9) conflict of interest statements and documentation for three named individuals during a specified time period; and (10) disciplinary files of three named individuals. ⁽¹⁾ You state the city will release some of the requested information. You claim some of the submitted information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.101 and 552.136 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted representative sample of information. ⁽²⁾ We have also received and considered comments from the requestor. See Gov't Code § 552.304 (interested party may submit comments stating why information should or should not be released).

Section 552.101 of the Government Code excepts from public disclosure "information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision." Gov't Code § 552.101. This section encompasses common-law privacy, which protects information that is (1) highly intimate or embarrassing, the publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person and (2) not of legitimate concern to the public. Indus. Found. v. Tex. Indus. Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668, 685 (Tex. 1976). To demonstrate the applicability of common-law privacy, both prongs of this test must be demonstrated. See id. at 681-82. The type of information considered intimate or 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. Id. at 683. This office has also found personal financial information not relating to the financial transaction between an individual and a governmental body is excepted from required public disclosure under common-law privacy. See Open Records Decision Nos. 600 (1992), 545 (1990) (deferred compensation information, participation in voluntary investment program, election of optional insurance coverage, mortgage payments, assets, bills, and credit history). This office has found financial information relating only to an individual ordinarily satisfies the first requirement of the test for common-law privacy. See ORD 600 (designation of beneficiary of employee's retirement benefits, direct deposit authorization, and forms allowing employee to allocate pretax compensation to group insurance, health care or dependent care), 523 (1989). However, information concerning financial transactions between an employee and a public employer is generally of legitimate public interest. Id. Therefore, financial information relating to retirement benefits must be disclosed if it reflects the employee's mandatory contributions to a retirement program. See ORD 600. On the other hand, information is excepted from disclosure if it relates to a voluntary investment the employee made in an optional benefits plan offered by the agency. Id. Upon review, we find the information we have marked is highly intimate or embarrassing and not of legitimate public concern. Therefore, the city must withhold the information we marked under section 552.101 of the Government Code in conjunction with common-law privacy. ⁽³⁾ However, we find you have not demonstrated how any of the remaining information is highly intimate or embarrassing and not of legitimate public concern. Thus, the remaining information may not be withheld under section 552.101 in conjunction with common-law privacy. The city must release the remaining information.

This letter ruling is limited to the particular information 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 information or any other circumstances.

This ruling triggers important deadlines regarding the rights and responsibilities of the governmental body and of the requestor. For more information concerning those rights and responsibilities, please visit our website at http://www.oag.state.tx.us/open/index_orl.php, or call the Office of the Attorney General's Open Government Hotline, toll free, at (877) 673-6839. Questions concerning the allowable charges for providing public information under the Act must be directed to the Cost Rules Administrator of the Office of the Attorney General, toll free at (888) 672-6787.

Sincerely,

Claire V. Morris Sloan

Assistant Attorney General

Open Records Division

CVMS/som

Ref: ID# 474897

Enc. Submitted documents

c: Requestor

(w/o enclosures)

Footnotes

1. You state the city sought and received clarification of the information requested. See Gov't Code § 552.222 (providing if request for information is unclear, governmental body may ask requestor to clarify request); see also City of Dallas v. Abbott, 304 S.W.3d 380, 387 (Tex. 2010) (holding that when a governmental entity, acting in good faith, requests clarification or narrowing of an unclear or overbroad request for information, the ten-day period to request an attorney general ruling is measured from the date the request is clarified or narrowed).

2. We assume 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 those records contain substantially different types of information than that submitted to this office.

3. As our ruling is dispositive for the information at issue, we need not address your remaining argument against its disclosure.

POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US
An Equal Employment Opportunity Employer