State of New YorkFOIL-AO-15278
May 2, 2005
TO:
FROM: Robert J. Freeman, Executive Director
The staff of the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisory opinions. The ensuing staff advisory opinion is based solely upon the facts presented in your correspondence.
Dear
I have received your letter and apologize for the delay in response. You have sought an advisory opinion relating to responses to your requests for records by the New York City Department of Education. Specifically, you referred to a report of the Auditor General of the New York City Board of Education, the predecessor of the Department, stating that the office of Auditor General "performed audits of attendance in various high schools", and you requested those audits, as well as others "performed thereafter", and any such audit focusing on District 75. You were informed that there have been no audits of attendance concerning District 75, and that "[t]here are no releasable documents" concerning the remainder of your request. You later requested the Department’s subject matter list.
In this regard, I offer the following comments.
First, since the Department’s response indicates that there is no audit pertaining specifically to District 75, but that there are no "releasable copies" of the other audits requested, the inference is that other audits exist and were withheld in their entirety. If that is so, I believe that the denial of access by the Department is overbroad and inconsistent with law.
As a general matter, the Freedom of Information Law is based upon a presumption of access. Stated differently, all records of an agency are available, except to the extent that records or portions thereof fall within one or more grounds for denial appearing in §87(2)(a) through (i) of the Law.
The only basis for denial of apparent relevance is §87(2)(g). That provision permits an agency to withhold records that:
"are inter-agency or intra-agency materials which are not:
i. statistical or factual tabulations or data;
ii. instructions to staff that affect the public;
iii. final agency policy or determinations; or
iv. external audits, including but not limited to audits performed by the comptroller and the federal government..."
It is noted that the language quoted above contains what in effect is a double negative. While inter-agency or intra-agency materials may be withheld, portions of such materials consisting of statistical or factual information, instructions to staff that affect the public, final agency policy or determinations or external audits must be made available, unless a different ground for denial could appropriately be asserted. Concurrently, those portions of inter-agency or intra-agency materials that are reflective of opinion, advice, recommendation and the like could in my view be withheld.
Because the provision cited above refers to "external audits", it has been contended that internal audits, such as those that are the subject of your request, may be withheld in their entirety. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the language of the Freedom of Information Law that pertains specifically to internal audits or that exempts them form disclosure. The fact that external audits must be disclosed does not suggest other records, such as internal audits, are exempt, in their entirety, from disclosure. On the contrary, as stated earlier, all records are presumed to be available, and silence in the law concerning a certain kind of record does not confer confidentiality, but rather a presumption of access. In this instance, an internal audit constitutes "intra-agency" material that is accessible or deniable, in whole or in part, based on its contents.
The paragraph quoted above, other than the first sentence, was quoted in full in Gannett Co. v. Rochester City School District [684 NYS 2d 757, 759 (1998)], and the court agreed with my opinion that portions of internal audits consisting of "statistical or factual tabulations or data" must be disclosed pursuant to subparagraph (i) of §87(2)(g).
I note, too, that the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, dealt with a similar contention relating to a different aspect of §87(2)(g). In Gould et al. v. New York City Police Department [89 NY2d 267 (1996)], the agency denied access on the basis of §87(2)(g)(iii), which grants access to "final agency policy or determinations", on the ground that the records sought were not final and did not relate to any event whose outcome had been finally determined. As in Ganett, in which the agency contended that because external audits are accessible, internal audits can be withheld in their entirety, the New York City Police Department argued that because final determinations are public, records other than final may be withheld in their entirety. The Court of Appeals rejected that argument and stated that:
"...we note that one court has suggested that complaint follow-up reports are exempt from disclosure because they constitute nonfinal intra-agency material, irrespective of whether the information contained in the reports is 'factual data' (see, Matter of Scott v. Chief Medical Examiner, 179 AD2d 443, 444, supra [citing Public Officers Law §87[2][g][111]). However, under a plain reading of §87(2)(g), the exemption for intra-agency material does not apply as long as the material falls within any one of the provision's four enumerated exceptions. Thus, intra-agency documents that contain 'statistical or factual tabulations or data' are subject to FOIL disclosure, whether or not embodied in a final agency policy or determination (see, Matter of Farbman & Sons v. New York City Health & Hosp. Corp., 62 NY2d 75, 83, supra; Matter of MacRae v. Dolce, 130 AD2d 577)..." [Gould et al. v. New York City Police Department, 89 NY2d 267, 276 (1996); emphasis added by Court ].
The Court also dealt with the issue of what constitutes "factual data" that must be disclosed under §87(2)(g)(i). In its consideration of the matter, the Court found that:
"...Although the term 'factual data' is not defined by statute, the meaning of the term can be discerned from the purpose underlying the intra-agency exemption, which is 'to protect the deliberative process of the government by ensuring that persons in an advisory role [will] be able to express their opinions freely to agency decision makers' (Matter of Xerox Corp. v. Town of Webster, 65 NY2d 131, 132 [quoting Matter of Sea Crest Constr. Corp. v. Stubing, 82 AD2d 546, 549]). Consistent with this limited aim to safeguard internal government consultations and deliberations, the exemption does not apply when the requested material consists of 'statistical or factual tabulations or data' (Public Officers Law 87[2][g][I]. Factual data, therefore, simply means objective information, in contrast to opinions, ideas, or advice exchanged as part of the consultative or deliberative process of government decision making" (id., 276-277).
In brief, insofar as the records sought consist of statistical or factual information, I believe that the Department is obliged to disclose.
It is emphasized that the introductory language of §87(2) refers to the authority to withhold "records or portions thereof" that fall within the scope of the exceptions that follow. In my view, the phrase quoted in the preceding sentence evidences a recognition on the part of the Legislature that a single record or report, for example, might include portions that are available under the statute, as well as portions that might justifiably be withheld. That being so, I believe that it also imposes an obligation on an agency to review records sought, in their entirety, to determine which portions, if any, might properly be withheld or deleted prior to disclosing the remainder.
The Court of Appeals expressed its general view of the intent of the Freedom of Information Law in Gould, stating that:
"To ensure maximum access to government records, the 'exemptions are to be narrowly construed, with the burden resting on the agency to demonstrate that the requested material indeed qualifies for exemption' (Matter of Hanig v. State of New York Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 79 N.Y.2d 106, 109, 580 N.Y.S.2d 715, 588 N.E.2d 750 see, Public Officers Law § 89[4][b]). As this Court has stated, '[o]nly where the material requested falls squarely within the ambit of one of these statutory exemptions may disclosure be withheld' (Matter of Fink v. Lefkowitz, 47 N.Y.2d, 567, 571, 419 N.Y.S.2d 467, 393 N.E.2d 463)" (id., 275).
Just as significant, the Court in Gould repeatedly specified that a categorical denial of access to records is inconsistent with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Law. In that case, the agency contended that complaint follow up reports, also known as "DD5's", could be withheld in their entirety on the ground that they fall within the exception regarding intra-agency materials. The Court, however, wrote that: "Petitioners contend that because the complaint follow-up reports contain factual data, the exemption does not justify complete nondisclosure of the reports. We agree" (id., 276). The Court then stated as a general principle that "blanket exemptions for particular types of documents are inimical to FOIL's policy of open government" (id., 275). The Court also offered guidance to agencies and lower courts in determining rights of access and referred to several decisions it had previously rendered, directing that:
"...to invoke one of the exemptions of section 87(2), the agency must articulate 'particularized and specific justification' for not disclosing requested documents (Matter of Fink v. Lefkowitz, supra, 47 N.Y.2d, at 571, 419 N.Y.S.2d 467, 393 N.E.2d 463). If the court is unable to determine whether withheld documents fall entirely within the scope of the asserted exemption, it should conduct an in camera inspection of representative documents and order disclosure of all nonexempt, appropriately redacted material (see, Matter of Xerox Corp. v. Town of Webster, 65 N.Y.2d 131, 133, 490 N.Y.S. 2d, 488, 480 N.E.2d 74; Matter of Farbman & Sons v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., supra, 62 N.Y.2d, at 83, 476 N.Y.S.2d 69, 464 N.E.2d 437)" (id.).
Based on the language of the law and especially its judicial interpretation, again, those portions consisting of statistical or factual information, in my view, must be disclosed.
Lastly, the Freedom of Information Law generally pertains to existing records, and an agency is not required to create a record in response to a request [see §89(3)]. An exception that rule relates to the "subject matter list." Specifically, §87(3) of the Freedom of Information Law states in relevant part that:
"Each agency shall maintain...
c. a reasonably detailed current list by subject matter, of all records in the possession of the agency, whether or not available under this article."
The subject matter list required to be maintained under §87(3)(c) is not, in my opinion, required to identify each and every record of an agency; rather I believe that it must refer, by category and in reasonable detail, to the kinds of records maintained by an agency. Further, the regulations promulgated by the Committee on Open Government state that such a list should be sufficiently detailed to enable an individual to identify a file category of the record or records in which that person may be interested [21 NYCRR 1401.6(b)]. I emphasize that §87(3)(c) does not require that an agency ascertain which among its records must be made available or may be withheld. Again, the Law states that the subject matter list must refer, in reasonable detail, to the kinds of records maintained by an agency, whether or not they are available.
I hope that I have been of assistance.
RJF:tt
cc: Susan Holtzman