Ms. Suzanne Carello
P.O. Box 734
Seneca Falls, NY 13148-0734
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 Ms. Carello:
I have received your letter of March 23, as well as a copy of a request that you intend to direct to the Village of Seneca Falls. You have asked whether "all the records" that you might request must be disclosed and whether the request should be notarized.
First, there is no requirement that request be notarized. Any written request that reasonably describes the records sought should be sufficient.
Second, your request refers to the federal Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts. Those statutes pertain only to records maintained by federal agencies. They would not apply in the context of a request directed to an entity of state or local government, such as the Village. In my view, the State's Freedom of Information Law would be the governing statute.
Third, as a general matter, the Freedom of Information Law pertains to existing records. An agency ordinarily is not required to create or prepare records in response to a request. Similarly, the Freedom of Information Law does not require that an agency provide information in response to questions. Therefore, rather than raising a question, as in item (9)(f), it is suggested that you request existing records.
Fourth, one of the exceptions to the rule that an agency need not create a record relates to the first aspect of your request, which involves a "master index." With respect to the "master index", reference to that phrase appears in a section of the regulations promulgated by the Department of Correctional Services. It is based upon §87(3)(c) of the Freedom of Information Law, which requires that each agency maintain:
"a reasonably detailed current list by subject matter, of all records in the possession of the agency, whether or not available under this article."
The subject matter list is not, in my opinion, required to identify each and every record of an agency; rather I believe that it must refer, by category and in reasonable detail, to the kinds of records maintained by an agency. It has been suggested that the records retention schedule promulgated by the State Archives and Records Administration, a unit of the State Education Department, be adopted by a municipality as its subject matter list, for it is more complete than a subject matter list must be. Therefore, I suggest that you seek the records retention schedule from the Village Clerk, who, by statute, is the Village's records management officer.
Fifth, 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. Although two of the grounds for denial relate to many of the records that you requested, based on the language of the Law and its judicial interpretation, I believe that those records are generally available.
Of significance is §87(2)(g), which 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.
Attendance and payroll records could be characterized as "intra-agency materials." However, those portions reflective of dates or figures concerning leave time or absences, the times that employees arrive at or leave work, or which identify employees by name and salary would constitute "statistical or factual" information accessible under §87(2)(g)(i).
As suggested earlier, 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, as well as attendance records, must be disclosed.
Of relevance is §87(2)(b), which permits an agency to withhold record or portions of records when disclosure would result in "an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." However, 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, this Committee has advised and the courts have upheld the notion that records that are relevant to the performance of the official duties of public employees are generally available, for disclosure in such instances would result in a permissible as opposed to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [Gannett, supra; Capital Newspapers v. Burns, 109 AD 2d 292, aff'd 67 NY 2d 562 (1986) ; Steinmetz v. Board of Education, East Moriches, Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., NYLJ, October 30, 1980; Farrell v. Village Board of Trustees, 372 NYS 2d 905 (1975) ; and Montes v. State, 406 NYS 664 (Court of Claims 1978)]. 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.
In a decision dealing with attendance records that was affirmed by the State's highest court, the Court of Appeals, it was found, in essence, that disclosure would result in a permissible rather than an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Specifically, the Appellate Division found that:
"One of the most basic obligation of any employee is to appear for work when scheduled to do so. Concurrent with this is the rights of an employee to properly use sick leave available to him or her. In the instant case, intervenor had an obligation to report for work when scheduled along with a right to use sick leave in accordance with his collective bargaining agreement. The taxpayers have an interest in such use of sick leave for economic as well as safety reasons. Thus it can hardly be said that disclosure of the dates in February 1983 when intervenor made use of sick leave would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Further, the motives of petitioners or the means by which they will report the information is not determinative since all records of government agencies are presumptively available for inspection without regard to the status, need, good faith or purpose of the applicant requesting access..." [Capital Newspapers v. Burns, 109 AD 2d 92, 94-95 (1985), aff'd 67 NY 2d 562 (1986)].
Insofar as attendance records or time sheets include reference to reasons for an absence, it has been advised that an explanation of why sick time might have been used, i.e., a description of an illness or medical problem found in records, could be withheld or deleted from a record otherwise available, for disclosure of so personal a detail of a person's life would likely constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and would not be relevant to the performance of an employee's duties. A number, however, which merely indicates the amount of sick time or vacation time accumulated or used, or the dates and times of attendance or absence, would not in my view represent a personal detail of an individual's life and would be relevant to the performance of one's official duties. Therefore, I do not believe that §87(2)(b) could be asserted to withhold that kind of information contained in an attendance record.
With respect to phone bills and related records, I am unaware of the kinds of records that might be maintained by the Village. Again, it would not be required to create, prepare or acquire records in response to a request. In terms of access to existing phone use records, 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 agency who uses an agency 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 or perhaps portions of those numbers (i.e., the last four digits) 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.
You also requested minutes of meetings and executive sessions held by the Board of Trustees. In this regard, I direct your attention to §106 of the Open Meetings Law which provides that:
"1. Minutes shall be taken at all open meetings of a public body which shall consist of a record or summary of all motions, proposals, resolutions and any other matter formally voted upon and the vote thereon.
2. Minutes shall be taken at executive sessions of any action that is taken by formal vote which shall consist of a record or summary of the final determination of such action, and the date and vote thereon; provided, however, that such summary need not include any matter which is not required to be made public by the freedom of information law as added by article six of this chapter.
3. Minutes of meetings of all public bodies shall be available to the public in accordance with the provisions of the freedom of information law within two weeks from the date of such meetings except that minutes taken pursuant to subdivision two hereof shall be available to the public within one week from the date of the executive session."
In view of the foregoing, it is clear in my opinion that minutes of open meetings must be prepared and made available within two weeks of the meetings to which they pertain.
I point out that, as a general rule, a public body may take action during a properly convened executive session [see Open Meetings Law, §105(1)]. If action is taken during an executive session, minutes reflective of the action, the date and the vote must be recorded in minutes pursuant to §106(2) of the Law. If no action is taken, there is no requirement that minutes of the executive session be prepared.
It is noted that minutes of executive sessions need not include information that may be withheld under the Freedom of Information Law. From my perspective, even when a public body makes a final determination during an executive session, that determination will, in most instances, be public. For example, although a discussion to hire or fire a particular employee could clearly be discussed during an executive session [see Open Meetings Law, §105(1)(f), a determination to hire or fire that person would be recorded in minutes and would be available to the public under the Freedom of Information Law. On other hand, if a public body votes to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against a public employee, minutes reflective of its action would not have include reference to or identify the person, for the Freedom of Information Law authorizes an agency to withhold records to the extent that disclosure would result in an unwarranted personal privacy [see Freedom of Information Law, §87(2)(b)].
I hope that I have been of assistance.
Robert J. Freeman
cc: Board of Trustees