Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1984 )

The Attorney General of Texas
D6c~mdlcr 21. 1984
JIM MATTOX
tltomey benerrl
uprm ooun swdl~ Aouorabla Jama6 Uarmn Smith. Jr. Opinion No. ``-265
.o.eox12545 Prio County Attornc~
Auctln. lx. 75711.2543 P. 0. Box v Ra: Uhathar charging axcarslva
512/4752561 Pcar6all. Taxa 7’9061 fea6 for C0pia6 Of public docu-
mm ot(M7c1#7
mento cooatitutcr a criminal
elec~r 5121475.0255
OffaU6e under the Open Records
Act
14 J4ck4ot-8. Suit. 700
allas. TX. 752024505
Dear Mr. Smith:
214n42dou
You iaforu ua thst an individual hs6 raqua6cad records from a
524Albma Ave..SW0 tso 6chool di6trict undc,r the Open Record6 Act, article 6252-17a; V.T.C.S.
El Paso. Tn 799052793 The superintendent charge6 fee6 for photocopia6 in axce66 of those
015633464 publi6bad in Docunuht Ro. 770460 by the State Board of Control, now
known as the State Purchasing and Cenaral Services Coaaniaeion. You
luol 1*xcr. Suite 700 a6k vhathar ch6rging ucessiva fear for photocopies of documents is an
Houston, TX. 77002Jll t Offenlle vithin sectha 10(b) of the Dpen Record6 Act.
t3l22556c6
Section 10 of the Open Record6 Act provides a6 follova:
(a) IoEowtlon deemed confidential und& the
tarm6 of t:hir Act shall not be dirtributad.
(b) A custodian of public raCOrd6. or hi6
309 N. Tenth. Sulla S
agent, .. coritr an offan6e if, vith crkind
&Allm. lx. 711541.tea5
512f&u4547 MgliganCe. h6 dr hi6 agent fails ‘Or rafu6aa to
give lcce66 to, or to permit or provide copying
of; public recorda to any parson upon request as
jmvided ht tlilr Act.
wa22541w
(c) It la an affirmstive defan6e to pro6ecu-
tion under Subsection (b) of thi6 6aCtiOn that the
custodian of public record6 raaaonably believed
thst the public records ‘rought uara not raquirad
to be made available to the public and that ha:
(1) acted in reasonable rrlianca upon a
court order or a written interpretation of this
Act wntainad in an opinion of a court of
record or of the attorney general issued under
Section 7 of this ACC;
Honorable ~amea WItran Smith, A:. - P6ga 2 (Jh-265)
(2) raque6ted II dacialon from the actornay
general in 6ccortlanca with Section 7 of thl6
Act, and that such daci6ion 16 pending; or
(3) ulthin three vorking dayo of th6
receipt of a dacir:lon by the attorney general
that the inform6tion 16 public, filed 6 C6u66
of action 6aekin8 relief from compliance vlth
8uCh d6Ci6iOn of l:ha attorney panatal. and that
6uch cau6e 16 ptntll.ng.
(d) la an lf:~:trmativa
It defense to proaacu-
rlon under Subsection (b) of this section that tha
defendant is the agent of a custodian of public
records and chat th’e agent reasonably relied on
the written instruct:h of the cucltodian of public
records not to d:iscloea the public raCOrd6
raquasttd.
(C) &y parson who ViOl6tb6 section 10(a) or
LO(b) of thi6 Act shall be deemed guilty of a
misdema6nor and upon conviction 6hall be punished
by confinement in tine county jail not to lxcaad
sir (6) months or fined in an muat not to exceed
$1.000, or by both 6uch fine and confincrcnt. A
violation under this section constitutes official
misconduct.
Section 9 of. the Open Rawrd6 Act govern6 charge6 for copier of
public records.... Section 9(a) provides as follou6:
Sac. 9. (a) The cost to any parson requesting
noncertified pbotogrrphlc reproductions of public
records colpri6ad .of page@ up to legal rira shall
.i not be axca66ive. The State Board of Control
shall from tims to tilv determine the actual cost
of standard 6ixa reproductions and ohall pariodi-
tally publl6h theso eo6t figure6 for uaa by
agtncia6 in dtterr~lning charges to be wda
pursuant to this Act.
In our opinion, the offense defined in section IO(b) dota not
include the refusal to provide copies In accordance vith the section 9
coat provi6ion. Section 9 16 composed of diverse provisions. Sub-
sections (d) and (f) incorpora~:c! other provisions of law setting costs
to be charged by district, county, and municipal court clerks. Sub-
section (b) prOVidt6 for consultation between the Purchasing
Cowission and the custodian of the records to determine charges for
record6 In a form “other th&lr up to standard sited ps8as.” Only
p. 1181
Honorable James Warren Smith, Jr. - Page 3 (JPI-265)
aactioa 9(a). on the cost DE noncertified photographic copies,
admonishes that the co6t “sh6ll ‘not be lxca66ive.” It 16 difficult CO
bclieva that the lagislaturc iutended such co6t6 to be revieved in a
criminal proceeding, when more costly mode6 of duplication are
governed by consultation bctvstn the custodian and en administrative
agency.
The legislature has txpl:c!clsly allouad cu6todianr to contest
attorney general dacirions in s civil suit. V.T.C.S. art. 6252-17a.
110(c)(3). No comparable provision allow a custodian to l6certain
what ha may charge for duplicating a set of standard size racordr.
The act itself does not define “sctual” or “excessive” Costs.
Document No. 770460 of the Purcheslng Co~ission is an “interpretation
of co6t determination” and dot!6 not purport to be an administrative
rule. The legi6laturt may pravidt a criminal sanction for violation
of rules adopted by an agency pursuant to statutory authority, but
Document No. 770460 does non: provide such a basis for criminal
pro6ecution. Tuttle v. Wood, :I5 S.U.Zd 1061 (Tex. Civ. App. - San
Antonio 1930, writ ref’d). We cannot reasonably assume that the
legislatura intended criminal enforcement of 6uch an indefinite
provision. Cf. Colautti v. P:ranklin.
-- 439 U.S. 379 (1979) (crtiinal
statute must-e sufficient nctice of prohibited conduct).
The language of sections 9 and 10 appear6 to be directed at
withholding information in pr,blic records and dots not 6uggt6t a
legislative intent to penalize the charging of excessive fees for
photocopies. The legi6lativt history of section IO(b) 6upporta this
conclusion. Subsection 10(b) in ita present form and subsection6
10(c) through 10(a) ware added to the Open Record6 Act by Rowe Bill
No. 1969 of the Sixty-sixth Legislature. Compare Acts 1979, 66th
Leg.. ch. 414 (amendment) vith Act6 1973. 63rd Lag.. ch. 424 (original
enactment). House Bill No. 1969 as introduced proposed adding a
lub6ectios (b) to section 8, au follows:
Section 8(a) [mauclamu6 remedy for refusal to
request an Attorney General’s decision or refusal
to supply public lnfor=tion].
(b). Upon issuan~z6 of a final vrltten opinion
by the Attorney Cene::al declaring certain lnforma-
tion to be a public record. refusal by s govern-
=a1 body to make such infomtlon public rhall
be deemed a misdewa~wr [penalty provision]. . . .
(Enphasia added).
A committee substitute to Hour;c Bill No. 1969 proposed the enacted
version of the bill. Three bill analyses to Corenittec Substitute
House Bill No. 1969 describctl the offense provision in virtually
p. 1182
Ilonorablc Jamer Warren Smicb, Jr. - Page 4 (3%265)
Idantieal tarme. The gI11 Anslyais prepared for the Houaa Comittea
on State Affairr provides as fallova:
PURPOSE:
Thla bill would provide for an offmae to be
charged againrt the custodian of public recorda,
or his agent, for failure to uka available
information that haa been designated aa public'
recorde. It would slao provide for affirmative
dafanaea for such a charge.
SECTION BY SECTION MJrLYSIS:
--
Section 1: Providea that confidential
information ahall not be distributed.
Providaa that an offense la cdttad by the
custodian of public wcorda or hia agent if one of
tbem faila to maha .``railablc'informrrtIoa that la
public record to som! one uho haa the authority to
raqueat it. (l3mphasL19 added).
Sea also Bill Analysis on C.S. House Bill No. 1969 and House Bill No.
1969; Senate Bill Analysis on :%wae Bill No. 1969.
The original veraloo of Ilouse Bill No. 1969 vaa directed aolaly
SC enforcing the attorney gc!neral'a decialoaa that information la
public. Tha enacted bill b'roadencd the offcnaa to cover "public
racorde." not merely records claclared public by the attorney general.
It la an offama to fail or refuse
to give access to, or to permit or provide copying .:.
of, public records to any paraon upon request as
provIdad in this Act.
V.T.C.S. art. 6252-17a. 110(b). Lagialativa history, aa teen in the
introduced version of gowe gill No. 1969 and the analyeaa of &he
enacted varrioo, revesl the lr&slative intent to punish the vrongful
failure to relaaae public ,lnfonnatIon. Tha rcfuaal to "provide
copying of" public records should ba Interpreted as a method of vith-
holding the Information contal.rad in thoea racorda. See V.T.C.S. art.
6252-17a. S2(2). A defendant could vithhold complet~ublic informs-
tion by permitting access but refusing copier of voluminous public
records. Soma Information is, noraovar. subject to inspection oolp in
the fotm of copies. See. e.g., ( Open Records Dacisloo Nos. 353 (1983).
87 (1975) (extracts of infckstlon from records). Thus. charging
excessive fear constitutes strong evidence of a violation of section
10(b).
p. 1183
Honorable Jamea Uerren Smith, Jr. - Page 5 (``-265)
UC conclude that the charglng of excessive costa for photocopies
of documenta is not In and 01’ Itself an offcnee vithio lec tlo n IO(b)
of the Open Recorde Act. A rcquestor vi11 have to fiod other meanr to
dlnpute prices charged for Fhotocopies under the Opeo Records Act.
See generally Industrial Fourdation-of the South v.‘Texae Industrial
Accident Board, 540 S.U.2d 66Ii; 687 (Tex. 1976); Bendricko v. Board of
Trusteea of Spring Branch Iodependent School District, 525 S.U.Zd 930
(Tex. Civ. App. - Aoueton [Isit Diet.] 1975. vrit raf’d n.r.e.) (cost
Iarrues raised In mandamus suit).
Sectioo IO(b) o,f article 6252-17s. V.T.C.S..
the Open Records Act, does not Include as a
criminal offense 4 vIolatIon of eectloo 9(a),
vhich relates to t:aa charges for photocopies of
public records.
JIM MATTOX -
Attorney General of Texao
Ton GREEN
First Assistant Attorney Cene::al
DAVID R. RICBARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney Goners1
RICR GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Cmittee
Prepared by Susan 1.. Garrison
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED
:
OPINIONCOFS4IlTEE
Rick Gilpin, Chairman
Susan Garrison
Tony Guillory
Jim Hoellinge,r
Jennifer Riggs
Nancy Sutton
D. 1184