September 14, 1995
Mr. Denis P. Meadows
Assoc. Public Records Mgmt. Spec.
NYS Archives and Records Administration
Cultural Education Center
Albany, NY 12230
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, unless otherwise indicated.
Dear Mr. Meadows:
As you are aware, I have received your letter of August 23. Please accept my apologies for the delay in response.
According to your letter, you recently received a request for records from a local government official whose application for a grant under the Local Government Records Management Improvement Fund Grants Program (LGRMIF) was rejected. The information sought involves:
"1. A copy of the written evaluations of each of the independent grant reviewers who reviewed this government's grant application and a list of their names, areas of expertise and their employer.
2. The name of the Local Government Records Advisory Council member who sat on the review panel."
You expressed reluctance concerning disclosure of the information sought, for it is your view that disclosure might preclude the panelists from providing "objective decisions without the fear of retribution from their colleagues or government officials." You added that in the past, you "have provided the local governments who have requested reviewers' comments with a copy of the individual reviewer's comments with that reviewer's name or other identifying details deleted from the copy."
You have sought my opinion on the matter. 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. From my perspective, two of the grounds for denial are pertinent to an analysis of rights of access.
Based on our recent discussion, it is my understanding that the "independent grant reviewers" are not government employees, but rather are private persons retained, essentially as consultants, for the purpose of evaluating and offering recommendations concerning grant applications. According to the judicial interpretation of the Freedom of Information Law, internal memoranda and similar records, as well as records prepared for an agency by a consultant, may be treated as "intra-agency" materials that fall within the scope of §87(2)(g). That provision 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.
In a discussion of the issue of consultant reports, the Court of Appeals, the State's highest court, stated that:
"Opinions and recommendations prepared by agency personnel may be exempt from disclosure under FOIL as 'predecisional materials, prepared to assist an agency decision maker***in arriving at his decision' (McAulay v. Board of Educ., 61 AD 2d 1048, aff'd 48 NY 2d 659). Such material is exempt 'to protect the deliberative process of government by ensuring that persons in an advisory role would be able to express their opinions freely to agency decision makers (Matter of Sea Crest Const. Corp. v. Stubing, 82 AD 2d 546, 549).
"In connection with their deliberative process, agencies may at times require opinions and recommendations from outside consultants. It would make little sense to protect the deliberative process when such reports are prepared by agency employees yet deny this protection when reports are prepared for the same purpose by outside consultants retained by agencies. Accordingly, we hold that records may be considered 'intra-agency material' even though prepared by an outside consultant at the behest of an agency as part of the agency's deliberative process (see, Matter of Sea Crest Constr. Corp. v. Stubing, 82 AD 2d 546, 549, supra; Matter of 124 Ferry St. Realty Corp. v. Hennessy, 82 AD 2d 981, 983)" [Xerox Corporation v. Town of Webster, 65 NY 2d 131, 132-133 (1985)].
Based upon the foregoing, the Court in Xerox specified that the contents of intra-agency materials determine the extent to which they may be available or withheld, for it was held that:
"While the reports in principle may be exempt from disclosure, on this record - which contains only the barest description of them - we cannot determine whether the documents in fact fall wholly within the scope of FOIL's exemption for 'intra-agency materials,' as claimed by respondents. To the extent the reports contain 'statistical or factual tabulations or data' (Public Officers Law section 87[g][i], or other material subject to production, they should be redacted and made available to the appellant" (id. at 133).
Therefore, intra-agency materials or records prepared by a consultant for an agency would be accessible or deniable, in whole or in part, depending on their contents.
In my view, insofar as the records in question consist of advice, recommendations or opinions, they could be withheld, whether they were prepared by an LGRAC member or by an independent grant review serving as a consultant. However, to the extent that they consist of statistical or factual data, for example, I believe that they would be available, unless a different ground for denial could be asserted.
With respect to the names of those who served on the review panels, you informed me that your office maintains a database consisting of the names of grant reviewers and their employers' addresses, but that you do not maintain information indicating their areas of expertise. In my opinion, although §87(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information Law authorizes an agency to withhold records insofar as disclosure would constitute "an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy", because the panelists served in their official capacities as agency employees or in their business or professional capacities as consultants, I believe that their names and business addresses would be accessible under the Law. There are several judicial decisions, both New York State and federal, which in my opinion are relevant, in that they pertain to records about individuals in their business or professional capacities.
For instance, one decision involved a request for the names and addresses of mink and ranch fox farmers from a state agency (ASPCA v. NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets, Supreme Court, Albany County, May 10, 1989). In granting access, the court relied in part and quoted from an opinion rendered by this office in which it was advised that "the provisions concerning privacy in the Freedom of Information Law are intended to be asserted only with respect to 'personal' information relating to natural persons". Further, the court held that:
"...the names and business addresses of individuals or entities engaged in animal farming for profit do not constitute information of a private nature, and this conclusion is not changed by the fact that a person's business address may also be the address of his or her residence. In interpreting the Federal Freedom of Information Law Act (5 USC 552), the Federal Courts have already drawn a distinction between information of a 'private' nature which may not be disclosed, and information of a 'business' nature which may be disclosed (see e.g., Cohen v. Environmental Protection Agency, 575 F Supp. 425 (D.C.D.C. 1983)."
In another more recent decision, Newsday, Inc. v. New York State Department of Health (Supreme Court, Albany County, October 15, 1991)], data acquired by the State Department of Health concerning the performance of open heart surgery by hospitals and individual surgeons was requested. Although the Department provided statistics relating to surgeons, it withheld their identities. In response to a request for an advisory opinion, it was advised by this office, based upon the New York Freedom of Information Law and judicial interpretations of the federal Freedom of Information Act, that the names should be disclosed, for the data related to professional licensees acting in the performance of professional activities. The court agreed and cited the opinion rendered by this office.
Like the Freedom of Information Law, the federal Act includes an exception to rights of access designed to protect personal privacy. Specifically, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6) states that rights conferred by the Act do not apply to "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." In construing that provision, federal courts have held that the exception:
"was intended by Congress to protect individuals from public disclosure of 'intimate details of their lives, whether the disclosure be of personnel files, medical files or other similar files'. Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Commodity Futures Trading Com'n supra, 627 F.2d at 399, quoting Rural Housing Alliance v. U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, 498 F.2d 73, 77 (D.C. Cir. 1974); see Robles v. EOA, 484 F.2d 843, 845 (4th Cir. 1973). Although the opinion in Rural Housing stated that the exemption 'is phrased broadly to protect individuals from a wide range of embarrassing disclosures', 498 F.2d at 77, the context makes clear the court's recognition that the disclosures with which the statute is concerned are those involving matters of an intimate personal nature. Because of its intimate personal nature, information regarding 'marital status, legitimacy of children, identity of fathers of children, medical condition, welfare payment, alcoholic consumption, family fights, reputation, and so on' falls within the ambit of Exemption 4. Id. By contrast, as Judge Robinson stated in the Chicago Board of Trade case, 627 F.2d at 399, the decisions of this court have established that information connected with professional relationships does not qualify for the exemption" [Sims v. Central Intelligence Agency, 642 F.2d 562, 573-573 (1980)].
In Cohen, the decision cited in ASPCA v. Department of Agriculture and Markets, supra, it was stated pointedly that: "The privacy exemption does not apply to information regarding professional or business activities...This information must be disclosed even if a professional reputation may be tarnished" (supra, 429). Similarly in a case involving disclosure of those whose grant proposals were rejected, it was held that:
"The adverse effect of a rejection of a grant proposal, if it exists at all, is limited to the professional rather than personal qualities of the applicant. The district court spoke of the possibility of injury explicitly in terms of the applicants' 'professional reputation' and 'professional qualifications'. 'Professional' in such a context refers to the possible negative reflection of an applicant's performance in 'grantsmanship' - the professional competition among research scientists for grants; it obviously is not a reference to more serious 'professional' deficiencies such an unethical behavior. While protection of professional reputation, even in this strict sense, is not beyond the purview of exemption 6, it is not at its core" [Kurzon v. Department of Health and Human Services, 649 F.2d 65, 69 (1981)].
In sum, based on the preceding analysis, I believe that the records in question may be withheld to the extent that they consist of opinions, advice or recommendations, but that the names and business addresses of the panelists must be disclosed. It is noted that, despite your ability to withhold significant aspects of the records, the Freedom of Information Law is permissive, and you may choose to disclose the records in their entirety.
I hope that I have been of assistance. If you would like to discuss the matter, please feel free to contact me.
Robert J. Freeman