May 21, 2002
The staff of the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisory opinions. The ensuing staff advisory opinion is based solely upon the facts presented in your correspondence.
I have received your letter and the materials relating to it, one of which is an agreement between a school district an individual who agreed to resign and which states that the agreement "shall remain confidential and shall not be revealed to any third party for a period of ten (10) years from the date hereof, unless production of this agreement or of the terms of this agreement is required by law." The other documentation consists of what are characterized as letters of recommendation and a general release.
You have sought an opinion concerning "which, if any, of these documents must be provided pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law. From my perspective, the agreement must be disclosed, but the district could choose to withheld the letters of recommendation. In this regard, I offer the following comments.
First, situations have arisen in which the parties to an agreement or stipulation of settlement have agreed to refrain from speaking about or disclosing the terms of the agreement or stipulation on their own initiative. In my view, it is likely that the parties may validly agree not to speak about a settlement or agreement. However, the Freedom of Information Law pertains to records, not to speech. In a decision that may be pertinent to the matter that you described, Paul Smith's College of Arts and Sciences v. Cuomo, it was stated that:
"Plaintiff was the subject of a complaint made by a former employee who alleged that he was a victim of age discrimination. Prior to a scheduled hearing and with the assistance of an employee of defendant State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter SDHR), plaintiff entered into a stipulation of settlement with the complaining employee. Plaintiff's stated purpose for settling was to eliminate any negative publicity resulting from a public hearing on the allegations. The order after stipulation signed by defendant Commissioner of Human Rights on August 23, 1989 provided for absolute confidentiality except for enforcement purposes. The order also provided for the withdrawal of the charges and discontinuance of the administrative proceeding. Plaintiff did not admit to a Human Rights violation. On October 27, 1989, SDHR issued a press release detailing the allegations, disclosing that the matter hade been settled and set forth certain parts of the settlement terms" [589 NYS2d 106,107, 186 AD2d 888 (1992)].
The Appellate Division determined that the issuance of the press release "was both arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion" (id.), but it also found that the stipulation of settlement was subject to rights of access conferred by the Freedom of Information Law.
I note that it has been held in variety of circumstances that a promise or assertion of confidentiality cannot be upheld, unless a statute specifically confers confidentiality. In Gannett News Service v. Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services [415 NYS 2d 780 (1979)], a state agency guaranteed confidentiality to school districts participating in a statistical survey concerning drug abuse. The court determined that the promise of confidentiality could not be sustained, and that the records were available, for none of the grounds for denial appearing in the Freedom of Information Law could justifiably be asserted. In a decision rendered by the Court of Appeals, it was held that a state agency's:
"long-standing promise of confidentiality to the intervenors is irrelevant to whether the requested documents fit within the Legislature's definition of 'record' under FOIL. The definition does not exclude or make any reference to information labeled as 'confidential' by the agency; confidentiality is relevant only when determining whether the record or a portion of it is exempt..." [Washington Post v. Insurance Department, 61 NY 2d 557, 565 (1984)].
Second, I believe that the agreement must be disclosed. 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. Unless records may justifiably be withheld in accordance with one or more of the grounds for denial, a claim, a promise or an agreement to maintain confidentiality would, based on judicial decisions, be meaningless.
In Geneva Printing Co. v. Village of Lyons (Supreme Court, Wayne County, March 25, 1981), a public employee charged with misconduct and in the process of an arbitration hearing engaged in a settlement agreement with a municipality. One aspect of the settlement was an agreement to the effect that its terms would remain confidential. Notwithstanding the agreement of confidentiality, which apparently was based on an assertion that "the public interest is benefited by maintaining harmonious relationships between government and its employees", the court found that no ground for denial could justifiably be cited to withhold the agreement. In so holding, the court cited a decision rendered by the Court of Appeals and stated that:
"In Board of Education v. Areman, (41 NY2d 527), the Court of Appeals in concluding that a provision in a collective bargaining agreement which bargained away the board of education's right to inspect personnel files was unenforceable as contrary to statutes and public policy stated: 'Boards of education are but representatives of the public interest and the public interest must, certainly at times, bind these representatives and limit or restrict their power to, in turn, bind the public which they represent. (at p. 531).
"A similar restriction on the power of the representatives for the Village of Lyons to compromise the public right to inspect public records operates in this instance.
"The agreement to conceal the terms of this settlement is contrary to the FOIL unless there is a specific exemption from disclosure. Without one, the agreement is invalid insofar as restricting the right of the public to access."
It was also found that the record indicating the terms of the settlement constituted a final agency determination available under the Law [ see FOIL, §87(2)(g)(iii)]. The decision states that:
"It is the terms of the settlement, not just a notation that a settlement resulted, which comprise the final determination of the matter. The public is entitled to know what penalty, if any, the employee suffered...The instant records are the decision or final determination of the village, albeit arrived at by settlement..."
In another decision, the matter involved the subject of a settlement agreement with a town that included a confidentiality clause who brought suit against the town for disclosing the agreement under the Freedom of Information Law. In considering the matter, the court stated that:
"Plaintiff argues that provisions of FOIL did not mandate disclosure in this instance. However, it is clear that any attempt to conceal the financial terms of this expenditure would violate the Legislative declaration of §84 of the Public Officer's Law, as it would conceal access to information regarding expenditure of public monies.
"Although exceptions to disclosure are provided in §§87 and 89, plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating that the financial provisions of this agreement fit within one of these statutory exceptions (see Matter of Washington Post v New York State Ins. Dept. 61 NY2d 557, 566). While partially recognized in Matter of LaRocca v Bd. of Education, 220 AD2d 424, those narrowly defined exceptions are not relevant to defendants' disclosure of the terms of a financial settlement (see Matter of Western Suffolk BOCES v Bay Shore Union Free School District, ___AD2d___ 672 NYS2d 776). There is no question that defendants lacked the authority to subvert FOIL by exempting information from the enactment by simply promising confidentiality (Matter of Washington Post, supra p567).
"Therefore, this Court finds that the disclosure made by the defendant Supervisor was 'required by law', whether or not the contract so provided" (Hansen v. Town of Wallkill, Supreme Court, Orange County, December 9, 1998).
In short, absent the assertion of a ground for denial appearing in §87(2) of the Freedom of Information Law, and none in my view would apply, I believe that the agreement must be disclosed in response to a request made under the Freedom of Information Law, notwithstanding the language regarding confidentiality in the agreement.
Third, while I recognize that disclosure of the agreement in full would identify the individual, based on the decisions cited earlier and others, I do not believe that the provisions in the Freedom of Information Law pertaining to the protection of personal privacy would authorize a denial of access. I note that there is nothing in that statute 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.
Of greatest significance is §87(2)(b), which permits an agency to withhold records to the extent that disclosure would constitute "an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy". In addition, §89(2)(b) provides a series of examples of unwarranted invasions of personal privacy.
While the standard concerning privacy is flexible and may be subject to conflicting interpretations, the courts have provided substantial direction regarding the privacy of public officers employees. 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. With regard to records pertaining to public officers and employees, the courts have found 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].
The other ground for denial of significance, §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. Insofar as a request involve a final agency determination, I believe that such a determination must be disclosed, again, unless a different ground for denial could be asserted.
In consideration of the judicial decisions cited in the preceding commentary, I believe that disclosure of the agreement would constitute a permissible rather than unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and that it must be disclosed on request.
With respect to the letters of recommendation, §89(2)(b)(i) states that an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy includes "personal references of applicants for employment." Therefore, it appears that the letters of recommendation could be withheld from the public. I point out, however, that the Court of Appeals has held that the Freedom of Information Law is permissive, in that an agency may disclose records even if it is not obliged to do so [Capital Newspapers v. Burns, 67 NY2d 562, 567 (1986)]. Consequently, in my view, the letters of recommendation could be withheld, but the District would not be required to withhold them.
I hope that I have been of assistance.
Robert J. Freeman