September 11, 1995
Mr. Steven N. Levine
Press & Sun Bulletin
Vestal Parkway East
P.O. Box 1270
Binghamton, NY 13902
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. Levine:
As you are aware, I have received your letter of August 26. Please accept my apologies for the delay in response.
According to your letter and the correspondence attached to it, in your capacity as Staff Writer for the Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin, on March 22, you sent a request for records to the Executive Director of the Binghamton Housing Authority. As of the date of your letter to this office, "other than a telephone call questioning the integrity of this request", you have received no formal response. The request involves travel vouchers and other records associated with expenses incurred by members of the Authority's Board of Directors, as well as "salary costs associated with the housing authority police or any organization whose function it is to provide security within the Authority's holdings including phone expenses for cellular and long distance calls, mileage costs and expenditures under the Public Housing Drug Elimination grant for FY 1993-94."
You have sought assistance in the matter. In this regard, I offer the following comments.
First, I point out by way of background that the Freedom of Information Law is applicable to agency records and that §86(3) of the Law defines the term "agency" to include:
"any state or municipal department, board, bureau, division, commission, committee, public authority, public corporation, council, office of other governmental entity performing a governmental or proprietary function for the state or any one or more municipalities thereof, except the judiciary or the state legislature."
Section 3(2) of the Public Housing Law states that municipal housing authorities are public corporations, and §425 of the Public Housing Law specifies that the Binghamton Housing Authority was "created and established for the City of Binghamton" and that it "shall constitute a body corporate and politic." Since the definition of "agency" includes public corporations, I believe that the Housing Authority is clearly an "agency" required to comply with the Freedom of Information Law. Moreover, it has been held judicially that a municipal housing authority is subject to the Freedom of Information Law [Westchester Rockland Newspapers, Inc. v. Fischer, 101 AD 2d 840 (1985)].
Second, the Freedom of Information Law provides direction concerning the time and manner in which agencies must respond to requests. Specifically, §89(3) of the Freedom of Information Law states in part that:
"Each entity subject to the provisions of this article, within five business days of the receipt of a written request for a record reasonably described, shall make such record available to the person requesting it, deny such request in writing or furnish a written acknowledgement of the receipt of such request and a statement of the approximate date when such request will be granted or denied..."
If neither a response to a request nor an acknowledgement of the receipt of a request is given within five business days, or if an agency delays responding for an unreasonable time after it acknowledges that a request has been received, a request may, in my opinion, be considered to have been constructively denied. In such a circumstance, I believe that the denial may be appealed in accordance with §89(4)(a) of the Freedom of Information Law. That provision states in relevant part that:
"...any person denied access to a record may within thirty days appeal in writing such denial to the head, chief executive, or governing body, who shall within ten business days of the receipt of such appeal fully explain in writing to the person requesting the record the reasons for further denial, or provide access to the record sought."
In addition, it has been held that when an appeal is made but a determination is not rendered within ten business days of the receipt of the appeal as required under §89(4)(a) of the Freedom of Information Law, the appellant has exhausted his or her administrative remedies and may initiate a challenge to a constructive denial of access under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Rules [Floyd v. McGuire, 87 AD 2d 388, appeal dismissed 57 NY 2d 774 (1982)].
Third, with respect to rights of access, 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 opinion, only one of the grounds for denial is pertinent to an analysis of rights of access to the kinds of records that you requested. While that provision might permit certain aspects of the records in question to be withheld, I believe that the remainder must be disclosed.
Section 87(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information Law permits an agency to withhold records to the extent that disclosure would constitute "an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Although the standard concerning privacy is flexible and subject to a variety of interpretations, the courts have provided direction through their review of challenges to agencies' denials of access. In brief, 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, it has been held 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].
In the context of the records at issue, I believe that they are clearly relevant to the performance of the official duties of Board members and other Authority officials and employees. Consequently, with the exception of personal details, they must in my view be disclosed. Examples of the kinds of personal details that could be deleted prior to disclosure of the remainder of the records would be such items as home addresses, social security numbers and personal credit card numbers.
Similarly, payroll records pertaining to public officers and employees are accessible. 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 salaries must be disclosed.
Again, §87(2)(b) pertaining to privacy is relevant. Nevertheless, 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 Gannett, supra, the Court of Appeals held that the identities of former employees laid off due to budget cuts, as well as current employees, should be made available. In addition, as stated prior to the enactment of the Freedom of Information Law, payroll records:
"...represent important fiscal as well as operation 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.
It is noted that one of the decisions cited above, Capital Newspapers v. Burns, supra, involved a request for records reflective of the days and dates of sick leave claimed by a particular municipal police officer. The Appellate Division found that those records must be disclosed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The decision indicates that the public has both economic and safety reasons for knowing whether public employees perform their duties when scheduled to do so. As such, attendance records, including those involving overtime work, are in my opinion clearly available, for they are relevant to the performance of public employees' official duties. Moreover, I believe that records reflective of payment of overtime must be disclosed, for the public has an economic interest in those records and because the records are relevant to the performance of public employees' official duties.
Lastly, in conjunction with the preceding remarks concerning access to records, I direct you to a statement concerning the intent and utility of the Freedom of Information Law, the Court of Appeals, the State's highest court, 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 foregoing, I believe that the need to enable the public to make informed choices and provide a mechanism for exposing waste or abuse can be balanced against the possible infringement upon the privacy of present or former public officers or employees in a manner consistent with the preceding commentary.
In an effort to enhance compliance with and understanding of the Freedom of Information Law, a copy of this opinion will be sent to the Authority's executive director. I hope that I have been of some assistance.
Robert J. Freeman
cc: David Tanenhaus, Executive Director