October 24, 1996



Mr. Mark Jackson
469 East Park Avenue
Long Beach, NY 11561

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. Jackson:

I have received your letter of October 6, as well as a variety of related materials. You have sought an advisory opinion concerning the propriety of certain denials of access to records by the City of Long Beach.

By way of background, one of the attachments to your letter is an article that appeared in Newsday in which it was reported that:

"The state comptroller's office has charged the city of Long Beach with illegally giving away tens of thousands of dollars to many of its departing employees and allowing current workers to exceed the time allotted for sick leave and vacations.

"In a report issued earlier this year...the city was charged with improper termination payments and improper payment for unused leave time."

Following that disclosure, you requested from the City records concerning "all retired pensioned employees, including exempt employees, receiving bona fide legal pensions plus compensatory dollars from December 1990 to July 1996." The request was denied by the City's Corporation Counsel on the ground that disclosure would result in "an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." He added that he was guided by the decision rendered in Bahlman v. Brier [462 NYS2d 381 (1983)]. You also referred to another request for "time and accrual records" relating to a particular retired employee that was denied.

From my perspective, with certain minor exceptions, the records containing the information sought must be disclosed. In general, records reflective of payments made to present or former public employees are, in my view, clearly available. Similarly, time and attendance records are accessible. In this regard, I offer the following comments.

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. While two of the grounds for denial are relevant to an analysis of rights of access, neither in my opinion could validly be asserted to withhold the information in which you are interested.

Of significance 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.

The records in question would constitute "intra-agency materials." However, they would appear to consist solely of statistical or factual information that must be disclosed under §87(2)(g)(i), unless a different ground for denial could properly be asserted. Although somewhat tangential to the matter, I point out that, with certain exceptions, the Freedom of Information Law is does not require an agency to create records. Section 89(3) of the Law states in relevant part that:

"Nothing in this article [the Freedom of Information Law] shall be construed to require any entity to prepare any record not in possession or maintained by such entity except the records specified in subdivision three of section eighty-seven..."

However, a payroll list of employees is included among the records required to be kept pursuant to "subdivision three of section eighty-seven" of the Law. Specifically, that provision states in relevant part that:

"Each agency shall maintain...

(b) a record setting forth the name, public office address, title and salary of every officer or employee of the agency... "

As such, a payroll record that identifies all officers or employees by name, public office address, title and salary must be prepared to comply with the Freedom of Information Law. Moreover, I believe that the payroll record and other related records identifying employees and their wages, including compensation for unused sick, vacation or personal leave, must be disclosed.

As suggested by Corporation Counsel, of primary relevance 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." However, payroll information has been found by the courts to be available [see e.g., Miller v. Village of Freeport, 379 NYS 2d 517, 51 AD 2d 765, (1976); Gannett Co. v. County of Monroe, 59 AD 2d 309 (1977), aff'd 45 NYS 2d 954 (1978)]. In addition, this 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)]. As stated prior to the enactment of the Freedom of Information Law, payroll records:

"...represent important fiscal as well as operational information. The identity of the employees and their salaries are vital statistics kept in the proper recordation of departmental functioning and are the primary sources of protection against employment favortism. They are subject therefore to inspection" Winston v. Mangan, 338 NYS 2d 654, 664 (1972)].

In short, a record identifying agency employees by name, public office address, title and salary must in my view be maintained and made available.

Based upon the direction provided by the Freedom of Information Law and the courts, I believe that other records reflective of payments made to public employees are available. For instance, insofar as W-2 forms of public employees indicate gross wages, they must be disclosed. In conjunction with the previous commentary concerning the ability to protect against unwarranted invasions of personal privacy, I believe that portions of W-2 forms could be withheld, such as social security numbers, home addresses and net pay, for those items are largely irrelevant to the performance of one's duties. However, for reasons discussed earlier, those portions indicating public officers' or employees' names and gross wages must in my view be disclosed. That conclusion has been reached judicially, and the court cited an advisory opinion rendered by this office in so holding (Day v. Town of Milton, Supreme Court, Saratoga County, April 27, 1992).

The records sought include information apparently derived from attendance records. While I am mindful of the decision rendered in Bahlman v. Brier, supra, it is emphasized that the decision was effectively reversed by the State's highest court. In a case dealing with attendance records indicating the dates and dates of sick leave claimed by a particular employee that was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, it was found, in essence, that disclosure would result in a permissible rather than an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Specifically, 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 contained in an attendance record.

Although the records at issue are not attendance records, figures indicating payments based on or derived from attendance records coupled with salary records, would, for reasons described in the preceding commentary, be public.

Employees' social security numbers, home addresses, member and retirement numbers are unique identifiers and could in my view be withheld based on considerations of privacy. In my opinion, those items may be deleted prior to the disclosure of the remainder of the records.

In an effort to enhance compliance with and understanding of the Freedom of Information Law, copies of this opinion will be forwarded to the City of Long Beach officials identified in your letter.

I hope that I have been of assistance.



Robert J. Freeman Executive Director RJF:jm

cc: Edward Eaton, City Manager
Joel Asarch, Corporation Counsel
Michael Barlotta, Jr., City Comptroller
Michael Zapson, President, City Council
Pearl Weill, Vice-President, City Council
Thomas Kelly, Councilman
Joel Crystal, Councilman