Mr. Bob Risman
Golden Sands Resort
P.O. Box 11
Lake Shore Drive
Diamond Point, NY 12824-0011
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. Risman:
I have received your letter of April 27 in which you requested an advisory opinion concerning a denial of a reuest for a record.
According to your letter, you and your wife met with the Town/Village of Lake George Consolidated Board of Health "to discuss building a deck on [y]our house..." Soon thereafter, you contacted the office of the Town Supervisor and spoke with his secretary for the purpose of requesting a tape recording of the meeting. You were informed by that person that "the Supervisor 'told [her] not to release any record to you', and 'the tape recorded record is [her] own personal property' and 'you cannot have a copy'."
In this regard, I offer the following comments.
First, the Freedom of Information Law pertains to 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."
The Court of Appeals, the State's highest court, has construed the definition as broadly as its specific language suggests. The first such decision that dealt squarely with the scope of the term "record" involved documents pertaining to a lottery sponsored by a fire department. Although the agency contended that the documents did not pertain to the performance of its official duties, i.e., fighting fires, but rather to a "nongovernmental" activity, the Court rejected the claim of a "governmental versus nongovernmental dichotomy" [see Westchester Rockland Newspapers v. Kimball, 50 NY 2d 575, 581 (1980)] and found that the documents constituted "records" subject to rights of access granted by the Law. Moreover, the Court determined that:
"The statutory definition of 'record' makes nothing turn on the purpose for which it relates. This conclusion accords with the spirit as well as the letter of the statute. For not only are the expanding boundaries of governmental activity increasingly difficult to draw, but in perception, if not in actuality, there is bound to be considerable crossover between governmental and nongovernmental activities, especially where both are carried on by the same person or persons" (id.).
In another decision rendered by the Court of Appeals, the Court focused on an agency claim that it could "engage in unilateral prescreening of those documents which it deems to be outside of the scope of FOIL" and found that such activity "would be inconsistent with the process set forth in the statute" [Capital Newspapers v. Whalen, 69 NY 2d 246, 253 (1987)]. The Court determined that:
"...the procedure permitting an unreviewable prescreening of documents - which respondents urge us to engraft on the statute - could be used by an uncooperative and obdurate public official or agency to block an entirely legitimate request. There would be no way to prevent a custodian of records from removing a public record from FOIL's reach by simply labeling it 'purely private.' Such a construction, which would thwart the entire objective of FOIL by creating an easy means of avoiding compliance, should be rejected" (id., 254).
Further, in a case involving notes taken by the Secretary to the Board of Regents that he characterized as "personal" in conjunction with a contention that he took notes in part "as a private person making personal notes of observations...in the course of" meetings. In that decision, the court cited the definition of "record" and determined that the notes did not consist of personal property but rather were records subject to rights conferred by the Freedom of Information Law [Warder v. Board of Regents, 410 NYS 2d 742, 743 (1978)].
Based upon the foregoing, since the Supervisor's secretary recorded the meeting in furtherance of the performance of her duties, I believe that the tape recording in question falls within the coverage of the Freedom of Information Law.
Second, 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, a tape recording of an open meeting is accessible, for you were present, and none of the grounds for denial would apply. Moreover, there is case law indicating that a tape recording of an open meeting is accessible for listening and/or copying under the Freedom of Information Law [see Zaleski v. Board of Education of Hicksville Union Free School District, Supreme Court, Nassau County, NYLJ, December 27, 1978].
Lastly, since a person present at an open meeting of a public body could have tape recorded the proceedings [see Mitchell v. Board of Education of the Garden City Union Free School District, 113 AD 2d 924 (1985)], I do not believe that there would be a valid basis for withholding the tape, particularly since you were present.
I hope that I have been of some assistance.
Robert J. Freeman
cc: Hon. Louis Tessier, Supervisor
Barbara Mitchell, Secretary