March 22, 1995



Mr. Craig T. Bumgarner
Curtiss, Leibell & Shilling, P.C.
20 Church Street
Carmel, NY 10512

The staff of the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisory opinions. The ensuing staff advisory opinion is based solely upon the information presented in your correspondence.

Dear Mr. Bumgarner:

As you are aware, I have received your letter of February 16 in which you sought an advisory opinion concerning the Freedom of Information Law.

According to your letter, last year the Town of Patterson engaged a firm to prepare independent audits of the Patterson and Putnam Lake Fire Departments in order to verify the Departments' request for an increase in their contract. A resident has requested a copy. However, you wrote that you "are undecided as to whether the audits should be released since the Fire Departments are private corporations and the material is of a sensitive nature."

In this regard, I offer the following comments.

First, although the Departments that were audited may be private corporations, it has been held that volunteer fire companies, despite their status as private, not-for-profit corporations, are agencies subject to the Freedom of Information Law.

By way of background, the Freedom of Information Law is applicable to agency records, and §86(3) of the Law defines the term "agency" to mean:

"any state or municipal department, board, bureau, division, commission, committee, public authority, public corporation, council, office or other governmental entity performing a governmental or proprietary function for the state or any one or more municipalities thereof, except the judiciary or the state legislature."

As such, the Freedom of Information Law generally pertains to records maintained by entities of state and local governments.

However,in Westchester-Rockland Newspapers v. Kimball [50 NYS 2d 575 (1980)], a case involving access to records relating to a lottery conducted by a volunteer fire company, the Court of Appeals, found that volunteer fire companies, despite their status as not-for-profit corporations, are "agencies" subject to the Freedom of Information Law. In so holding, the Court stated that:

"We begin by rejecting respondent's contention that, in applying the Freedom of Information Law, a distinction is to be made between a volunteer organization on which a local government relies for performance of an essential public service, as is true of the fire department here, and on the other hand, an organic arm of government, when that is the channel through which such services are delivered. Key is the Legislature's own unmistakably broad declaration that, '[a]s state and local government services increase and public problems become more sophisticated and complex and therefore harder to solve, and with the resultant increase in revenues and expenditures, it is incumbent upon the state and its localities to extend public accountability wherever and whenever feasible' (emphasis added; Public Officers Law, §84).

"True, the Legislature, in separately delineating the powers and duties of volunteer fire departments, for example, has nowhere included an obligation comparable to that spelled out in the Freedom of Information statute (see Village Law, art 10; see, also, 39 NY Jur, Municipal Corporations, §§560-588). But, absent a provision exempting volunteer fire departments from the reach of article 6-and there is none-we attach no significance to the fact that these or other particular agencies, regular or volunteer, are not expressly included. For the successful implementation of the policies motivating the enactment of the Freedom of Information Law centers on goals as broad as the achievement of a more informed electorate and a more responsible and responsive officialdom. By their very nature such objections cannot hope to be attained unless the measures taken to bring them about permeate the body politic to a point where they become the rule rather than the exception. The phrase 'public accountability wherever and whenever feasible' therefore merely punctuates with explicitness what in any event is implicit" (id. at 579].

Moreover, although it was contended that documents concerning the lottery were not subject to the Freedom of Information Law because they did not pertain to the performance of the company's fire fighting duties, the Court held that the documents constituted "records" subject to the Freedom of Information Law [see §86(4)].

More recently, another decision confirmed in an expansive manner that volunteer fire companies are required to comply with the Freedom of Information Law. That decision, S.W. Pitts Hose Company et al. v. Capital Newspapers (Supreme Court, Albany County, January 25, 1988), dealt with the issue in terms of government control over volunteer fire companies. In its analysis, the Court states that:

"Section 1402 of the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law is directly applicable to the plaintiffs and pertains to how volunteer fire companies are organized. Section 1402(e) provides:

'...a fire corporation, hereafter incorporated under this section shall be under the control of the city, village, fire district or town authorities having by law, control over the prevention or extinguishment of fires therein. Such authorities may adopt rules and regulations for the government and control of such corporations.'

"These fire companies are formed by consent of the Colonie Town Board. The Town has control over the membership of the companies, as well as many other aspects of their structure, organization and operation (section 1402). The plaintiffs' contention that their relationship with the Town of Colonie is solely contractual is a mischaracterization. The municipality clearly has, by law, control over these volunteer organizations which reprovide a public function.

"It should be further noted that the Legislature, in enacting FOIL, intended that it apply in the broadest possible terms. '...[I]t is incumbent upon the state and its localities to extend public accountability wherever and whenever feasible' (Public Officers Law, section 84).

"This court recognizes the long, distinguished history of volunteer fire companies in New York State, and the vital services they provide to many municipalities. But not to be ignored is that their existence is inextricably linked to, dependent on, and under the control of the municipalities for which they provide an essential public service."

Based upon the foregoing, it is clear that volunteer fire companies are subject to the Freedom of Information Law. Further, rights conferred by the Freedom of Information Law would be applicable whether the records are maintained by the Town, by the Departments, or both.

Second, in terms of rights of access, 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.

In my view, although one of the grounds for denial, §87(2)(g), is relevant to an analysis of rights of access. However, due to the structure of that provision, I believe that the audits would be available. The cited provision authorizes 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.

If the copies of the audits are in possession of the fire departments, I believe that the Departments would be obliged to disclose on the ground that the records are "external audits" available under §87(2)(g)(iv). From the perspective of the Town, the audits might be viewed as consultant reports. In a discussion of the status of such reports, the Court of Appeals has found that:

"In connection with their deliberative process, agencies may at times require opinions and recommendations from outside consultants. It would make little sense to protect the deliberative process when such reports are prepared by agency employees yet deny this protection when reports are prepared for the same purpose by outside consultants retained by agencies. Accordingly, we hold that records may be considered 'intra-agency material' even though prepared by an outside consultant at the behest of an agency as part of the agency's deliberative process (see, Matter of Sea Crest Constr. Corp. v. Stubing, 82 AD 2d 546, 549, supra; Matter of 124 Ferry St. Realty Corp. v. Hennessy, 82 AD 2d 981, 983)" [Xerox Corporation v. Town of Webster, 65 NY 2d 131, 133 (1985)].

Based upon the foregoing, a report prepared by a consultant for an agency may be withheld or must be disclosed based upon the same standards as in cases in which records are prepared by the staff of an agency. It is emphasized that the Court in Xerox specified that the contents of intra-agency materials determine the extent to which they may be available or withheld, for it was held that:

"While the reports in principle may be exempt from disclosure, on this record - which contains only the barest description of them - we cannot determine whether the documents in fact fall wholly within the scope of FOIL's exemption for 'intra-agency materials,' as claimed by respondents. To the extent the reports contain 'statistical or factual tabulations or data' (Public Officers Law section 87[2][g][i], or other material subject to production, they should be redacted and made available to the appellant" (id. at 133). Therefore, a record prepared by a consultant for an agency would be accessible or deniable, in whole or in part, depending on its contents. In this instance, even if the records could be characterized as consultant reports, they appear to consist of statistical or factual information that must be disclosed under §87(2)(g)(i).

I hope that I have been of some assistance.



Robert J. Freeman
Executive Director