Mr. Hal Travis
1616 Stolp Avenue
Syracuse, NY 13207
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. Travis:
I have received your letter of April 23 in which you seek an advisory opinion in your capacity as a member of the City of Syracuse Board of Education. You wrote that a controversy recently arose concerning your disclosure of records pertaining to the use of cellular phones by particular school employees.
According to your letter, the administrators' union "is threatening legal action" against you due to your release of the information, for, in your words, "they consider it personnel information since it contained the names of specific school employees." You contend, however, that it is a "general business/financial record." You added that the Board's attorney has suggested that the records are "confidential" pursuant to §805-a(1)(b) of the General Municipal Law, the rules of the Board of Education, and Part 84 of the regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Education. You indicated further that the Board intends to discuss the matter in executive session, and you questioned whether the matter could properly be considered in an executive session.
In this regard, I offer the following comments.
First, the Freedom of Information Law pertains to all agency records [see definition of "record", §86(4)] and 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.
Second, in my view, the term "confidential" has a narrow meaning. While I am mindful of the section of the General Municipal Law to which the Board's attorney referred, I do not believe that it would prohibit disclosure of cellular telephone records. That provision states that "[n]o municipal officer or employee shall... disclose confidential information acquired by him in the course of his official duties or use such information to further his personal interests." From my perspective, which is based on the language of the Freedom of Information Law and its judicial interpretation, an assertion or claim of confidentiality, unless it is based upon a statute, is likely meaningless. When confidentiality is conferred by a statute, records fall outside the scope of rights of access pursuant to §87(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information Law, which states that an agency may withhold records that "are specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute". If there is no statute upon which an agency can rely to characterize records as "confidential" or "exempted from disclosure", the records are subject to whatever rights of access exist under the Freedom of Information Law [see Doolan v.BOCES, 48 NY 2d 341 (1979); Washington Post v. Insurance Department, 61 NY 2d 557 (1984); Gannett News Service, Inc. v. State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse, 415 NYS 2d 780 (1979)]. As such, an assertion of confidentiality without more, would not in my opinion guarantee or require confidentiality.
Moreover, it has been held by several courts, including the Court of Appeals, that an agency's regulations or the provisions of a local enactment, such as an administrative code, local law, charter or ordinance, for example, do not constitute a "statute" [see e.g., Morris v. Martin, Chairman of the State Board of Equalization and Assessment, 440 NYS 2d 365, 82 Ad 2d 965, reversed 55 NY 2d 1026 (1982); Zuckerman v. NYS Board of Parole, 385 NYS 2d 811, 53 AD 2d 405 (1976); Sheehan v. City of Syracuse, 521 NYS 2d 207 (1987)]. For purposes of the Freedom of Information Law, a statute would be an enactment of the State Legislature or Congress. Therefore, a local enactment cannot confer, require or promise confidentiality. Similarly, insofar as Part 84 of the regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Education is more restrictive than a statute, the Freedom of Information Law, I believe that it is out of date and void. This not to suggest that all records must be disclosed; rather, I am suggesting that records may in some instances be withheld, but only in accordance with the grounds for denial appearing in the Freedom of Information Law, and that any claim of confidentiality based on a regulation, policy or local enactment that is inconsistent with that statute would be void to the extent of any such inconsistency.
Records often may be withheld under the Freedom of Information Law, even though they are not "confidential." A memorandum prepared by a member of staff at an agency in which he or she offers an opinion or advice to his or her supervisor may be withheld under §87(2)(g) of the Freedom of Information Law, for the opinion would constitute "intra-agency" material; home addresses of public employees may be withheld under §89(7), but it was held that an agency, a city school district, could disclose those addresses, notwithstanding objections by a union [Buffalo Teachers Federation v. Buffalo Board of Education, 549 NYS 2d 541, 156 AD 2d 1027 (1990)]. In short, even though an agency may have the authority to withhold records, the State's highest court has held that there is no obligation to do so [see Capital Newspapers v. Burns, 67 NY 2d 562 (1986)]. The only instance in which an agency is obliged to withhold would involve those cases in which records are specifically exempted from disclosure by statute.
Third, in a related vein, it is noted 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.
Next, I point out that the introductory language of §87(2) refers to the capacity to withhold "records or portions thereof" that fall within the scope of the grounds for denial that follow. In my opinion, the phrase quoted in the preceding sentence indicates that a single record may be both accessible or deniable in whole or in part. I believe that the quoted phrase also imposes an obligation on agency officials to review records sought, in their entirety, to determine which portions, if any, may justifiably be withheld. In my opinion, three of the grounds for denial may be relevant with respect to cellular phone records.
Section 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.
If phone records are generated by the District, I believe that the records could be characterized as intra-agency materials. Nevertheless, in view of their content, they would apparently consist of statistical or factual information accessible under §87(2)(g)(i) unless another basis for denial applies. As such, §87(2)(g) would not, in my opinion, serve as a basis for denial. If the records were prepared by a phone company and sent to the District, they would not fall within §87(2)(g), because the phone company would not be an agency.
Also pertinent is §87(2)(b), which 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 may be subject to conflicting interpretations, the courts have provided substantial direction regarding the privacy of public employees. It is clear that public employees enjoy a lesser degree of privacy than others, for it has been found in various contexts that public employees are required to be more accountable than others. With regard to records pertaining to public employees, the courts have found that, as a general rule, records that are relevant to the performance of a public employee's 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, Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., NYLJ, Oct. 30, 1980); 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].
When a public officer or employee uses a telephone in the course of his or her official duties, bills involving the use of the telephone would, in my opinion, be relevant to the performance of that person's official duties. On that basis, I do not believe that disclosure would result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy with respect to an officer or employee of the District who uses a District cellular phone.
Since phone bills often list the numbers called, the time and length of calls and the charges, it has been contended by some that disclosure of numbers called might result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, not with respect to a public employee who initiated the call, but rather with respect to the recipient of the call.
There is but one decision of which I am aware that deals with the issue. In Wilson v. Town of Islip, one of the categories of the records sought involved bills involving the use of cellular telephones. In that decision, it was found that:
"The petitioner requested that the respondents provide copies of the Town of Islip's cellular telephone bills for 1987, 1988 and 1989. The court correctly determined that the respondents complied with this request by producing the summary pages of the bills showing costs incurred on each of the cellular phones for the subject period. The petitioner never specifically requested any further or more detailed information with respect to the telephone bills. In view of the information disclosed in the summary pages, which indicated that the amounts were not excessive, it was fair and reasonable for the respondents to conclude that they were fully complying with the petitioner's request" [578 NYS 2d 642, 643, 179 AD 2d 763 (1992)].
The foregoing represents the entirety of the Court's decision regarding the matter; there is no additional analysis of the issue. I believe, however, that a more detailed analysis is required to deal adequately with the matter.
When phone numbers appear on a bill, those numbers do not necessarily indicate who in fact was called or who picked up the receiver in response to a call. An indication of the phone number would disclose nothing regarding the nature of a conversation. Further, even though the numbers may be disclosed, nothing in the Freedom of Information Law would require an individual to indicate the nature of a conversation. In short, I believe that the holding in Wilson is conclusory in nature and lacks a substantial analysis of the issue.
This is not to suggest that the numbers appearing on a phone bill must be disclosed in every instance. Exceptions to the general rule of disclosure might arise if, for example, a telephone is used to contact recipients of public assistance, informants in the context of law enforcement, or persons seeking certain health services. It has been advised in the past that if a government employee contacts those classes of persons as part of the employee's ongoing and routine duties, there may be grounds for withholding phone numbers listed on a bill. For instance, disclosure of numbers called by a caseworker who phones applicants for or recipients of public assistance might identify those who were contacted. In my view, the numbers could likely be deleted in that circumstance to protect against an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy due to the status of those contacted. Similarly, if a law enforcement official phones informants, disclosure of the numbers might endanger an individual's life or safety, and the numbers might justifiably be deleted pursuant to §87(2)(f) of the Freedom of Information Law.
In the context of a school district's phone bills, a third ground for denial, §87(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information Law, may be relevant, perhaps with respect to some of the records. Section 87(2)(a) pertains to records that are "specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute." One such statute is the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. §1232g), which is commonly known as the "Buckley Amendment". In brief, the Buckley Amendment applies to all educational agencies or institutions that participate in funding or grant programs administered by the United States Department of Education. As such, the Buckley Amendment includes within its scope virtually all public educational institutions and many private educational institutions. The focal point of the Act is the protection of privacy of students. It provides, in general, that any "education record", a term that is broadly defined, that is personally identifiable to a particular student or students is confidential, unless the parents of students under the age of eighteen waive their right to confidentiality, or unless a student eighteen years of over similarly waives his or her right to confidentiality. Further, the federal regulations promulgated under the Buckley Amendment define the phrase "personally identifiable information" to include:
"(a) The students name; (b) The name of the student's parents or other family member; (c) The address of the student or student's family; (d) A personal identifier, such as the student's social security number or student number; (e) A list of personal characteristics that would make the student's identity easily traceable; or (f) Other information that would make the student's identity easily traceable" (34 CFR §99.3).
Having contacted the Family Policy Compliance Office, the entity within the federal Department of Education that oversees the Buckley Amendment, I was advised that the Buckley Amendment would be implicated in ascertaining public rights of access to the records in question.
If a person employed by the District routinely and as a part of his or her official duties contacts parents of students by telephone, those portions of a phone bill that could identify parents and, therefore, students, would in my opinion be exempted from disclosure. Stated differently, under the federal regulations cited above, if a phone number could identify a parent of a student, a disclosure of that number would likely "make the student's identity easily traceable." To that extent, I believe that the Buckley Amendment would forbid disclosure. On the other hand, if a District employee does not routinely use a cellular phone to contact parents of students, the Buckley Amendment would be inapplicable.
In sum, in my opinion, it is likely that the records that you disclosed would be accessible under the Freedom of Information Law to any person, except to the extent that the records might identify a particular student or students.
With respect to the Open Meetings Law, like the Freedom of Information Law, that statute is based on a presumption of openness. Meetings of public bodies must be conducted open to the public except to the extent that there is a basis for entry into an executive session. The grounds for entry into executive session are specified and limited to the subjects appearing in paragraphs (a) through (h) of §105(1) of the Open Meetings Law.
In the context of your inquiry, if, for example, the issue involves the extent to which the kinds of records that you disclosed are public or should not have been disclosed, it does not appear that there would be any basis for entry into an executive session. However, if, for instance, the Board is discussing your actions and perhaps seeking your removal, §105(1)(f) might be applicable. That provision permits a public body to conduct an executive session to discuss:
"the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation..."
Lastly, it is noted that like the Freedom of Information Law, the Open Meetings Law is permissive. A public body may enter into executive session to discuss certain subjects but it is not obliged to do so. Further, even when information might have been obtained during an executive session properly held or from records marked "confidential", it is reiterated that the term "confidential" has a narrow technical meaning. For records or for information acquired during an executive session to be validly characterized as confidential, I believe that such a claim must be based upon a statute that specifically confers or requires confidentiality.
For instance, if a discussion by a board of education concerns a record pertaining to a particular student (i.e., in the case of consideration of disciplinary action, an educational program, an award, etc.), the discussion would have to occur in private and the record would have to be withheld insofar as public discussion or disclosure would identify the student. Again, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act generally prohibits an educational agency from disclosing education records or information derived from those records that are identifiable to a student, unless the parents of the student consent to disclosure. In the context of the Open Meetings Law, a discussion concerning a student would constitute a matter made confidential by federal law and would be exempted from the coverage of that statute [see Open Meetings Law, §108(3)]. In the context of the Freedom of Information Law, an education record would be specifically exempted from disclosure by statute in accordance with §87(2)(a). In both contexts, I believe that a board of education, its members and school district employees would be prohibited from disclosing, because a statute requires confidentiality.
In a case in which the issue was whether discussions occurring during an executive session held by a school board could be considered "privileged", it was held that "there is no statutory provision that describes the matter dealt with at such a session as confidential or which in any way restricts the participants from disclosing what took place" (Runyon v. Board of Education, West Hempstead Union Free School District No. 27, Supreme Court, Nassau County, January 29, 1987).
While there may be no prohibition against disclosure of the information acquired during executive sessions or records that could be withheld, the foregoing is not intended to suggest such disclosures would be uniformly appropriate or ethical. Obviously, the purpose of an executive session is to enable members of public bodies to deliberate, to speak freely and to develop strategies in situations in which some degree of secrecy is permitted. Similarly, the grounds for withholding records under the Freedom of Information Law relate in most instances to the ability to prevent some sort of harm. In both cases, inappropriate disclosures could work against the interests of a public body as a whole and the public generally. Further, a unilateral disclosure by a member of a public body might serve to defeat or circumvent the principles under which those bodies are intended to operate. Historically, I believe that public bodies were created to order to reach collective determinations, determinations that better reflect various points of view within a community than a single decision maker could reach alone. Members of boards should not in my opinion be unanimous in every instance; on the contrary, they should represent disparate points of view which, when conveyed as part of a deliberative process, lead to fair and representative decision making. Nevertheless, notwithstanding distinctions in points of view, the decision or consensus by the majority of a public body should in my opinion be recognized and honored by those members who may dissent. Disclosure made contrary to or in the absence of consent by the majority could result in unwarranted invasions of personal privacy, impairment of collective bargaining negotiations or even interference with criminal or other investigations. In those kinds of situations, even though there may be no statute that prohibits disclosure, release of information could be damaging to individuals and the functioning of government.
I hope that I have been of assistance.
Robert J. Freeman
cc: Board of Education
Joseph E. LaMendola
Dr. Robert E. DiFlorio
Robert C. Allen, Jr.