June 27, 1995


Mr. Thomas B. Milner, Comptroller
Town of Rotterdam
John F. Kirvin Government Center
Vinewood Avenue
Rotterdam, NY 12306

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. Milner:

I have received your letter of June 12 and appreciate your interest in the Freedom of Information Law.

According to your letter, the Town of Rotterdam is involved in a review of its personnel practices and is attempting to prepare new procedures concerning the administration of its personnel files. As part of that effort, you are trying to determine "who can have access to an individual's records and under what circumstances." As you requested, I have reviewed the materials that you enclosed and offer the following comments.

First, the Freedom of Information Law is applicable to all agency records, and §86(4) of the Law defines the term "record" expansively to include:

"any information kept, held, filed, produced, reproduced by, with or for an agency or the state legislature, in any physical form whatsoever including, but not limited to, reports, statements, examinations, memoranda, opinions, folders, files, books, manuals, pamphlets, forms, papers, designs, drawings, maps, photos, letters, microfilms, computer tapes or discs, rules, regulations or codes."

Consequently, whether documents are characterized as "official" or "confidential", or whether they pertain to current or former employees, they would constitute "records" that fall within the requirements of the Freedom of Information Law.

Second, under Part C entitled "General Guidelines", §4 states that an employee may not make copies of records contained in the "Official Personnel File." In my opinion, that provision should either be eliminated or modified.

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 Official Personnel File as it is described in the materials consists almost in its entirety of records either completed or known by an employee. In those circumstances, those records would be available to the employee under the Freedom of Information Law. Further, that statute provides the right to inspect and copy, as well as an obligation upon an agency to prepare copies on request and upon payment of the requisite fee. This is not to suggest that the records contained within the Official Personnel File must in every instance be disclosed to the public generally. Many aspects of that file could in my opinion be withheld pursuant to §§87(2)(b) and 89(2)(b) on the ground that disclosure would constitute "an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Nevertheless, §89(2)(c) states that unless there is an independent basis for withholding, disclosure "shall not be construed to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy...when upon presenting reasonable proof of identity, a person seeks access to records pertaining to him."

Similarly, §7 under the heading of "General Guidelines" states that individuals no longer employed by the Town cannot view the contents of their Official Personnel File. As indicated at the outset, the Freedom of Information Law pertains to all agency records. From my perspective, a former employee would enjoy rights of access to records about himself or herself based upon the provisions referenced in the preceding paragraph.

Next, under the headings of "Official Personnel File" and "Confidential Personnel File", there are lists of a variety of records. Some of those records could clearly be withheld based on considerations of privacy. Others, however, would in my opinion be public, perhaps in part or even in their entirety.

I point out that there is nothing in the Freedom of Information Law that deals specifically with personnel records or personnel files. Further, the nature and content of so-called personnel files may differ from one agency to another, and from one employee to another. In any case, neither the characterization of documents as "personnel records" nor their placement in personnel files would necessarily render those documents "confidential" or deniable under the Freedom of Information Law (see Steinmetz v. Board of Education, East Moriches, Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., NYLJ, Oct. 30, 1980). On the contrary, the contents of those documents serve as the relevant factors in determining the extent to which they are available or deniable under the Freedom of Information Law.

The provision of most significance concerning personnel records is, in my view, §87(2)(b). Again, that provision permits an agency to withhold records to the extent that disclosure would constitute "an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy".

While the standard concerning privacy is flexible and may be subject to conflicting interpretations, the courts have provided substantial direction regarding the privacy of public officers employees. It is clear that public officers and employees enjoy a lesser degree of privacy than others, for it has been found in various contexts that public officers and employees are required to be more accountable than others. Further, with regard to records pertaining to those persons, the courts have found that, as a general rule, records that are relevant to the performance of a their official duties are available, for disclosure in such instances would result in a permissible rather than an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [see e.g., Farrell v. Village Board of Trustees, 372 NYS 2d 905 (1975); Gannett Co. v. County of Monroe, 59 AD 2d 309 (1977), aff'd 45 NY 2d 954 (1978); Sinicropi v. County of Nassau, 76 AD 2d 838 (1980); Geneva Printing Co. and Donald C. Hadley v. Village of Lyons, Sup. Ct., Wayne Cty., March 25, 1981; Montes v. State, 406 NYS 2d 664 (Court of Claims, 1978); Powhida v. City of Albany, 147 AD 2d 236 (1989); Scaccia v. NYS Division of State Police, 530 NYS 2d 309, 138 AD 2d 50 (1988); Steinmetz v. Board of Education, East Moriches, supra; Capital Newspapers v. Burns, 67 NY 2d 562 (1986)]. Conversely, to the extent that records are irrelevant to the performance of one's official duties, it has been found that disclosure would indeed constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [see e.g., Matter of Wool, Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., NYLJ, Nov. 22, 1977].

Another ground for denial of significance, §87(2)(g), states that an agency may 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.

In terms of the judicial interpretation of the Freedom of Information Law, I point out that in situations in which allegations or charges have resulted in the issuance of a written reprimand, disciplinary action, or findings that public employees have engaged in misconduct, records reflective of those kinds of determinations have been found to be available, including the names of those who are the subjects of disciplinary action [see Powhida v. City of Albany, 147 AD 2d 236 (1989); also Farrell, Geneva Printing, Scaccia and Sinicropi, supra]. Most recently, it was held by the Appellate Division that "Disciplinary files containing disciplinary charges, the agency determination of the charges, and the penalties imposed...are not exempt from disclosure under FOIL; 'personal and intimate details of an employee's personal file' are exempt" [Obiajulu v. City of Rochester, 625 NYS 2d 779, 780, __AD 2d__(1995)]. Similarly, in Geneva Printing, supra, a public employee charged with misconduct and in the process of an arbitration hearing engaged in a settlement agreement with a municipality. One aspect of the settlement was an agreement to the effect that its terms would remain confidential. Notwithstanding the agreement of confidentiality, which apparently was based on an assertion that "the public interest is benefited by maintaining harmonious relationships between government and its employees", the court found that no ground for denial could justifiably be cited to withhold the agreement. On the contrary, it was determined that:

"the citizen's right to know that public servants are held accountable when they abuse the public trust outweighs any advantage that would accrue to municipalities were they able to negotiate disciplinary matters with its employee with the power to suppress the terms of any settlement".

In so holding, the court cited a decision rendered by the Court of Appeals and stated that:

"In Board of Education v. Areman, (41 NY2d 527), the Court of Appeals in concluding that a provision in a collective bargaining agreement which bargained away the board of education' s right to inspect personnel files was unenforceable as contrary to statutes and public policy stated: 'Boards of education are but representatives of the public interest and the public interest must, certainly at times, bind these representatives and limit or restrict their power to, in turn, bind the public which they represent. (at p. 531).

A similar restriction on the power of the representatives for the Village of Lyons to compromise the public right to inspect public records operates in this instance.

The agreement to conceal the terms of this settlement is contrary to the FOIL unless there is a specific exemption from disclosure. Without one, the agreement is invalid insofar as restricting the right of the public to access."

Other more recent decisions have required the disclosure of settlement agreements between teachesr and school districts following the initiation of disciplinary proceedings under §3020-a of the Education Law [Buffalo Evening News v. Board of Education of the Hamburg School District and Marilyn Will, Supreme Court, Erie County, June 12, 1987); Anonymous v. Mexico School District, 616 NYS 2d 867 (1994)].

It has been held in other circumstances that a promise or assertion of confidentiality cannot be upheld, unless a statute specifically confers confidentiality. In Gannett News Service v. Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services [415 NYS 2d 780 (1979)], a state agency guaranteed confidentiality to school districts participating in a statistical survey concerning drug abuse. The court determined that the promise of confidentiality could not be sustained, and that the records were available, for none of the grounds for denial appearing in the Freedom of Information Law could justifiably be asserted. In a decision rendered by the Court of Appeals, it was held that a state agency's:

"long-standing promise of confidentiality to the intervenors is irrelevant to whether the requested documents fit within the Legislature's definition of 'record' under FOIL. The definition does not exclude or make any reference to information labeled as 'confidential' by the agency; confidentiality is relevant only when determining whether the record or a portion of it is exempt..." [Washington Post v. Insurance Department, 61 NY 2d 557, 565 (1984)].

With respect to the qualifications of employees if, for example, an individual must have certain types of experience, educational accomplishments, licenses or certifications as a condition precedent to serving in a particular position, those aspects of a resume or application would in my view be relevant to the performance of the official duties of not only the individual to whom the record pertains, but also the appointing agency or officers. In a related context, when a civil service examination is given, those who pass are identified in "eligible lists" which have long been available to the public. By reviewing an eligible list, the public can determine whether persons employed by government have passed the appropriate examinations and met whatever qualifications that might serve as conditions precedent to employment. In my opinion, to the extent that records contain information pertaining to the requirements that must have been met to hold a position, they should be disclosed. Again, I believe that disclosure of those aspects of documents would result in a permissible rather than an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Disclosure represents the only means by which the public can be aware of whether the incumbent of the position has met the requisite criteria for serving in that position.

Another area mentioned in the list is performance appraisals. While the contents of appraisals or evaluations may differ, I believe that a typical evaluation contains three components. One involves a description of the duties to be performed by a person holding a particular position, or perhaps a series of criteria reflective of the duties or goals to be achieved by a person holding that position. Insofar as evaluations contain information analogous to that described, I believe that those portions would be available. In terms of privacy, a duties description or statement of goals would clearly be relevant to the performance of the official duties of the incumbent of the position. Further, that kind of information generally relates to the position and would pertain to any person who holds that position. As such, I believe that disclosure would result in a permissible rather than an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. In terms of §87(2)(g), a duties description or statement of goals would be reflective of the policy of an agency regarding the performance standards inherent in a position and, therefore, in my view, would be available under §87(2)(g)(iii). It might also be considered factual information available under §87(2)(g)(i). The second component involves a reviewer's subjective analysis or opinion of how well or poorly the standards or duties have been carried out or the goals have been achieved. In my opinion, that aspect of an evaluation could be withheld, both as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and under §87(2)(g), on the ground that it constitutes an opinion concerning performance. A third possible component is often a final rating, i.e., "good", "excellent", "average", etc. Any such final rating would in my opinion be available, assuming that any appeals have been exhausted, for it would constitute a final agency determination available under §87(2)(g)(iii), particularly if monetary award is based upon a rating. Moreover, a final rating concerning a public employee's performance is relevant to that person's official duties and therefore would not in my view result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if disclosed.

In sum, insofar as records do not fall within the scope of the grounds for denial appearing in the Freedom of Information Law, I believe that must be made available, notwithstanding their characterization or location of their placement.

If you would like to discuss the matter, please feel free to contact me. I hope that I have been of some assistance.



Robert J. Freeman
Executive Director