March 31, 2003
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.
I have received your letter in which you questioned whether certain records must be disclosed pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law.
In your capacity as attorney for the Enlarged City School District of Middletown, you wrote that the request involves "counseling memos" pertaining to the District's Superintendent, Robert Sigler. You added that the President of the Board of Education informed the public that two counseling memos had been prepared last year, but that Mr. Sigler has not been reprimanded, nor is he the subject of any final determination indicating misconduct. Mr. Sigler was arrested in January of this year and charged with sexual abuse of a student, and you expressed the belief that the request involves an effort to ascertain the extent to which information may have been in the Board's possession prior to the arrest. Since the matter is under investigation by the Police Department and the District Attorney, you wrote that District officials are concerned with respect to the effect of release of the memos on their investigation.
In this regard, as I understand the general sense of the phrase, a "counseling memo" does not represent or serve as a determination to the effect that an employee has been found to have engaged in misconduct; rather, a counseling memo is essentially a warning, an admonition, or advice offered to an employee. If my interpretation of the nature of the records at issue is accurate, based on the ensuing analysis, the counseling memos may be withheld.
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.
I note 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.
Perhaps of greatest significance is §87(2)(b), which permits an agency to withhold records to the extent that disclosure would constitute "an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy". In addition, §89(2)(b) provides a series of examples of unwarranted invasions 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 they are required to be more accountable than others. With regard to records pertaining to public officers and employees, the courts have found that, in general, 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].
Several of the decisions cited above, for example, Farrell, Sinicropi, Geneva Printing, Scaccia and Powhida, dealt with situations in which determinations indicating the imposition of some sort of disciplinary action pertaining to particular public employees were found to be available. When allegations or charges of misconduct have not yet been determined or did not result in disciplinary action or a finding of misconduct, the records relating to such allegations may, according to judicial pronouncement, be withheld, for disclosure would result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [see e.g., Herald Company v. School District of City of Syracuse, 430 NYS 2d 460 (1980)]. Similarly, to the extent that charges are dismissed or allegations are found to be without merit, I believe that they may be withheld.
The other 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.
Counseling memos in my view constitute intra-agency materials. Insofar as they consist of opinions, advice, conjecture, recommendations and the like, I believe that they may be withheld. However, factual information would be available, except to the extent, under the circumstances, that disclosure would result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
In sum, if indeed a counseling memo is essentially a warning rather than a conclusion reflective of a finding of misconduct, it would not constitute a final agency determination, and I believe that it could be withheld under §87(2)(g).
With respect to the impact on the investigation by law enforcement authorities, I do not believe that the exception typically relevant in that context would be applicable. Section 87(2)(e) permits an agency to withhold records "compiled for law enforcement purposes" when, for example, disclosure would interfere with an investigation. From my perspective, the records in question, although perhaps pertinent to an investigation, would not have been "compiled for law enforcement purposes."
I hope that I have been of assistance.
Robert J. Freeman