May 20, 1996



Ms. Lisa J. Bero
523 County Rte. 37
Massena, NY 13662

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 Ms. Bero:

I have received your letter of May 8 in which you sought an opinion concerning access to certain records of the Massena Memorial Hospital.

According to your letter, your requests for minutes of meetings of the Hospital's Board of Managers have been verbally denied. You also requested the vacation schedule and "operating room call schedule" pertaining to a particular physician. In response, you were informed that you must use the Hospital's request form, and that no operating room call schedule exists. You have questioned the veracity of that statement.

In this regard, I offer the following comments.

First, I believe that the Board of Managers constitutes a "public body" for purposes of the Open Meetings Law [see §102(2)] and an "agency" for purposes of the Freedom of Information Law [see §86(4)], and that it is required to comply with both statutes. Section 127 of the General Municipal Law pertains to the establishment of public hospitals by units of local government and the designation of boards of managers. Section 128 details the powers and duties of such boards. On the basis of those provisions, it is clear that a board of managers is a governmental entity that is required to comply with the Open Meetings and Freedom of Information Laws.

Second, with respect to minutes of meetings, the Open Meetings Law offers direction on the subject, and §106 of that statute states that:

"1. Minutes shall be taken at all open meetings of a public body which shall consist of a record or summary of all motions, proposals, resolutions and any other matter formally voted upon and the vote thereon.

2. Minutes shall be taken at executive sessions of any action that is taken by formal vote which shall consist of a record or summary of the final determination of such action, and the date and vote thereon; provided, however, that such summary need not include any matter which is not required to be made public by the freedom of information law as added by article six of this chapter.

3. Minutes of meetings of all public bodies shall be available to the public in accordance with the provisions of the freedom of information law within two weeks from the date of such meetings except that minutes taken pursuant to subdivision two hereof shall be available to the public within one week from the date of the executive session."

Based upon the foregoing, minutes of open meetings must be prepared and made available within two weeks. Although minutes reflective of action later during executive sessions must be prepared and made available within one week, it is noted that such minutes need not include information that is not required to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Law.

I point out, too, that there is nothing in the Open Meetings Law or any other statute of which I am aware that requires that minutes be approved. Nevertheless, as a matter of practice or policy, many public bodies approve minutes of their meetings. In the event that minutes have not been approved, to comply with the Open Meetings Law, it has consistently been advised that minutes be prepared and made available within two weeks, and that they may be marked "unapproved", "draft" or "non-final", for example. By so doing within the requisite time limitations, the public can generally know what transpired at a meeting; concurrently, the public is effectively notified that the minutes are subject to change.

Third, with regard to rights of access to records, 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 section 87(2)(a) through (i) of the Law. Although two of the grounds for denial relate to attendance records or work schedules, based upon the language of the Law and its judicial interpretation, I believe that such records are generally available.

In addition to the provisions dealing with the protection of privacy, also significant to an analysis of rights of access is §87(2)(g), which 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.

Attendance records and work schedules could be characterized as "intra-agency materials." However, those portions reflective of dates or figures concerning the use of leave time or absences or the time that employees arrive at or leave work would constitute "statistical or factual" information accessible under §87(2)(g)(i).

Perhaps most relevant is §87(2)(b), which permits an agency to withhold record or portions of records when disclosure would result in "an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." The Committee has advised and the courts have upheld the notion that records that are relevant to the performance of the official duties of public employees are generally available, for disclosure in such instances would result in a permissible as opposed to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [Gannett, supra; Capital Newspapers v. Burns, 109 AD 2d 292, aff'd 67 NY 2d 562 (1986) ; Steinmetz v. Board of Education, East Moriches, Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., NYLJ, October 30, 1980; Farrell v. Village Board of Trustees, 372 NYS 2d 905 (1975); and Montes v. State, 406 NYS 664 (Court of Claims 1978)].

In a decision affirmed by the State's highest court dealing with attendance records, specifically those indicating the days and dates of sick leave claimed by a particular employee, it was found, in essence, that disclosure would result in a permissible rather than an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. In that case, the Appellate Division found that:

"One of the most basic obligation of any employee is to appear for work when scheduled to do so. Concurrent with this is the rights of an employee to properly use sick leave available to him or her. In the instant case, intervenor had an obligation to report for work when scheduled along with a right to use sick leave in accordance with his collective bargaining agreement. The taxpayers have an interest in such use of sick leave for economic as well as safety reasons. Thus it can hardly be said that disclosure of the dates in February 1983 when intervenor made use of sick leave would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Further, the motives of petitioners or the means by which they will report the information is not determinative since all records of government agencies are presumptively available for inspection without regard to the status, need, good faith or purpose of the applicant requesting access..." [Capital Newspapers v. Burns, 109 AD 2d 92, 94-95 (1985), aff'd 67 NY 2d 562 (1986)].

Insofar as attendance records or time sheets include reference to reasons for an absence, it has been advised that an explanation of why sick time might have been used, i.e., a description of an illness or medical problem found in records, could be withheld or deleted from a record otherwise available, for disclosure of so personal a detail of a person's life would likely constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and would not be relevant to the performance of an employee's duties. A number, however, which merely indicates the amount of sick time or vacation time accumulated or used, or the dates and times of attendance or absence, would not in my view represent a personal detail of an individual's life and would be relevant to the performance of one's official duties. Therefore, I do not believe that §87(2)(b) could be asserted to withhold that kind of information you seek.

Moreover, in affirming the Appellate Division decision in Capital Newspapers, the Court of Appeals found that:

"The Freedom of Information Law expresses this State's strong commitment to open government and public accountability and imposes a broad standard of disclosure upon the State and its agencies (see, Matter of Farbman & Sons v New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 62 NY 2d 75, 79). The statute, enacted in furtherance of the public's vested and inherent 'right to know', affords all citizens the means to obtain information concerning the day-to-day functioning of State and local government thus providing the electorate with sufficient information 'to make intelligent, informed choices with respect to both the direction and scope of governmental activities' and with an effective tool for exposing waste, negligence and abuse on the part of government officers" (Capital Newspapers v. Burns, supra, 565-566).

Based on the preceding analysis, it is clear in my view that work schedules or attendance records, including those concerning the use or accrual of leave time, must be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Law.

Fourth, when an agency indicates that it does not maintain or cannot locate a record, an applicant for the record may seek a certification to that effect. Section 89(3) of the Freedom of Information Law provides in part that, in such a situation, on request, an agency "shall certify that it does not have possession of such record or that such record cannot be found after diligent search." If you consider it worthwhile to do so, you could seek such a certification. Since you questioned the veracity of a response, while I am not suggesting that it applies, §89(8) of the Freedom of Information Law states that: "Any person who, with intent to prevent public inspection of a record pursuant to this article, willfully conceals or destroys any such record shall be guilty of a violation."

Lastly, I do not believe that an agency can require that a request be made on a prescribed form. The Freedom of Information Law, section 89(3), as well as the regulations promulgated by the Committee (21 NYCRR 1401.5), which have the force of law and govern the procedural aspects of the Law, require that an agency respond to a request that reasonably describes the record sought within five business days of the receipt of a request. Further, the regulations indicate that "an agency may require that a request be made in writing or may make records available upon oral request" [21 NYCRR 1401.5(a)]. As such, neither the Law nor the regulations refer to, require or authorize the use of standard forms. Accordingly, it has consistently been advised that any written request that reasonably describes the records sought should suffice.

It has also been advised that a failure to complete a form prescribed by an agency cannot serve to delay a response or deny a request for records. A delay due to a failure to use a prescribed form might result in an inconsistency with the time limitations imposed by the Freedom of Information Law. For example, assume that an individual, such as yourself in the situation that you described, requests a record in writing from an agency and that the agency responds by directing that a standard form must be submitted. By the time the individual submits the form, and the agency possesses and responds to the request, it is probable that more than five business days would have elapsed, particularly if a form is sent by mail and returned to the agency by mail. Therefore, to the extent that an agency's response granting, denying or acknowledging the receipt of a request is given more than five business days following the initial receipt of the written request, the agency, in my opinion, would have failed to comply with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Law.

While the Law does not preclude an agency from developing a standard form, as suggested earlier, I do not believe that a failure to use such a form can be used to delay a response to a written request for records reasonably described beyond the statutory period. However, a standard form may, in my opinion, be utilized so long as it does not prolong the time limitations discussed above. For instance, a standard form could be completed by a requester while his or her written request is timely processed by the agency. In addition, an individual who appears at a government office and makes an oral request for records could be asked to complete the standard form as his or her written request.

In an effort to enhance compliance with and understanding of the Freedom of Information Laws, copies of this opinion will be forwarded to the Board of Managers and the Hospital's Administrator.

I hope that I have been of assistance.



Robert J. Freeman
Executive Director


cc: Board of Managers
James Watson, Administrator