The Attorney General of Texas 

JIM MATTOX D6c~mdlcr 21. 1984 

tltomey benerrl 

uprm ooun swdl~ 

.o.eox12545 

Auctln. lx. 75711.2543 

512/4752561 

mm ot(M7c1#7 

elec~r 5121475.0255 

14 J4ck4ot-8. Suit. 700 

allas. TX. 752024505 

214n42dou 

524 Albma Ave.. SW0 tso 

El Paso. Tn 799052793 

015633464 

luol 1*xcr. Suite 700 

Houston, TX. 77002Jll t 

t3l22556c6 

Aouorabla Jama6 Uarmn Smith. Jr. 

Prio County Attornc~ 

P. 0. Box v 

Pcar6all. Taxa 7’9061 

Opinion No. ~~-265 

Ra: Uhathar charging axcarslva 

fea6 for C0pia6 Of public documento cooatitutcr a criminal 

OffaU6e under the Open Records 

Act 

Dear Mr. 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 

a6k vhathar 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:hir Act shall not be dirtributad. 

309 N. Tenth. Sulla S 

&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 l cce66 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 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) It la an l f:~:trmativa defense to proaacurlon 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 tims to tilv determine the actual cost 

of standard 6ixa reproductions and ohall 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 to provide 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. 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 l xca66ive.” 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 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 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 

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 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 

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. 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 l ec 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 : 

OPINION COFS4IlTEE 

Rick Gilpin, Chairman 

Susan Garrison 

Tony Guillory 

Jim Hoellinge,r 

Jennifer Riggs 

Nancy Sutton 

D. 1184