# TheAttorney General ofTexas

JIMMATTOX D6c~mdlcr21. 1984 tltomey

### benerrl

uprmoounswdl~ .o.eox12545 Auctln.lx. 75711.2543 512/4752561 mmot(M7c1#7 elec~r 5121475.0255

14J4ck4ot-8.Suit.700 allas.TX.752024505 214n42dou


### 524AlbmaAve..

SW0tso ElPaso.Tn 799052793 015633464

luol1*xcr. Suite700 Houston,TX.77002Jll t t3l22556c6 Aouorabla Jama6Uarmn Smith. Jr. Prio County Attornc~ 

### P.

## 0.Boxv Pcar6all. 

### Taxa 7’9061 

## OpinionNo.~~-265
Ra: Uhathar 

### charging 

### axcarslva fea6 for C0pia6 Of public documento cooatitutcr a criminal OffaU6e under the Open Records Act 

### DearMr.Smith:
You iaforu ua thst an individual hs6 raqua6cad records from a 6chool di6trict undc,r

### the Open Record6 Act, article 6252-17a; V.T.C.S. The superintendent 

### charge6 fee6 for photocopia6 in axce66 of those publi6bad in Docunuht Ro. 770460 by the State Board of Control, now known as the State Purchasing and Cenaral Services Coaaniaeion. You a6kvhathar ch6rging ucessiva fear for photocopies of documents is an Offenlle vithin 

### sectha 10(b) of the Dpen Record6 Act.
Section 10

### of the Open Record6 Act provides a6

### follova:

(a) IoEowtlon deemed confidential und& the tarm6 of t:hirAct shall not 

### bedirtributad.

309N.Tenth.SullaS &Allm. lx. 711541.tea5 512f&u4547 

### (b) A custodian of public raCOrd6. 

### or hi6 **agent,**

..coritr an offan6e if, 

## vith crkind 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 pro6ecution 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 

### andthat 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 7of this ACC;Honorable ~ameaWItran Smith, A:. - P6ga 2 (Jh-265)

(2) raque6ted IIdacialon 

### from**the** actornay general 

### in 6ccortlanca with Section 7 of 

### thl6 **Act,** and

### that such daci6ion 16pending; or (3) ulthin three vorking dayo of 

### th6 receipt of a 

### dacir:lon by the attorney general 

### that **the** inform6tion 

### 16public, filed 

### 6**C6u66** of action 6aekin8 relief from compliance vlth 

### 8uChd6Ci6iOn of l:haattorney panatal. and that 6uch cau6e 16ptntll.ng. (d) It la an 

### l f:~:trmativa 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 

### l xcaad 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

# timsto tilv determine the actual cost of standard 6ixa reproductions 

### andohall 

### parioditally 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 

### toprovide copies In accordance vith the section 9 coat provi6ion. Section 9 16 composed of diverse provisions. Subsections (d) and (f) incorpora~:c! other provisions of law setting costs to be charged by district, county, and municipal court clerks. Subsection (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. 1181Honorable James Warren Smith, Jr. - Page 3 (JPI-265)

aactioa 

### 9(a). on the cost DE noncertified photographic copies, admonishes that 

### theco6t “sh6ll ‘notbe

### l xca66ive.” It 16difficult 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 

### l 6certain 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 maypravidt 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 

### l ub6ectios (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 lnformation to be a public record. refusal by s govern- =a1 body to

### make such infomtlon public rhall be deemed amisdewa~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. 1182Ilonorablc Jamer Warren Smicb, Jr. - Page 4 (3%265)

Idantieal tarme. The gI11 Anslyais 

### prepared for the Houaa Comittea onState 

### 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 acharge.
SECTIONBYSECTION

### 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. (l3mphasL19added).
Sea also Bill Analysis on C.S. House Bill 

### No. 1969and House Bill No. 1969; Senate Bill Analysis on :%wae Bill No. 1969.
The original veraloo of Ilouse Bill No. 1969vaa 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. 

## Itla an

V.T.C.S. 

### 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.

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 vithholding the Information contal.rad in thoea racorda. See V.T.C.S. art. 

### 6252-17a. S2(2). A defendant could vithhold complet~ublic informstion by permitting access but refusing copier of voluminous public records. SomaInformation 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 JameaUerren Smith, Jr. -Page5 (~~-265)



### UCconclude that the charglng of excessive costa for photocopies of documenta is not Inand01’Itself an

### offcnee vithio l ectlon



### IO(b) oftheOpenRecordeAct. Arcquestor vi11 have tofiod other meanr to dlnpute prices charged for Fhotocopies under the Opeo Records Act. 

### Seegenerally Industrial Fourdation-of the Southv.‘Texae Industrial Accident Board, 

### 540S.U.2d 66Ii; 687(Tex. 1976); Bendricko v. Board of 

### Trusteea ofSpring Branch Iodependent School District, 525S.U.Zd 930 (Tex. Civ. App. 

### - Aoueton [Isit Diet.] 1975. vrit raf ’d n.r.e.) (cost Iarruesraised Inmandamussuit).

Sectioo IO(b) o,farticle 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 DAVIDR.RICBARDS Executive Assistant Attorney Goners1 RICRGILPIN Chairman, Opinion Cmittee Prepared bySusan 1..Garrison Assistant Attorney General APPROVED

: OPINION

COFS4IlTEE RickGilpin, Chairman SusanGarrison TonyGuillory JimHoellinge,r Jennifer Riggs NancySutton

D. 1184