QBffice of the IZIttornep @enecal 

Nate of Qexae 

DAN MORALES 

ATTORNEY GENERAL September 12.1991 

Honorable John Hannah, Jr. 

Secretary of State 

P.O. Box 12697 

Austin, Texas 7871 l-2697 

Opinion No. DM-41 

Re: Whether a person requesting 

records pursuant to the Texas Open 

Records Act may dictate the media in 

which public information must be provided and related questions (RQ-46) 

Dear Mr. Hannah: 

You ask whether a requesting party may specify the form in which public information must be provided to the public by the secretary of state under the Texas 

Open Records Act, article 6252-17a, V.T.C.S. Specifically, you advise that you have 

received a request for information regarding corporations maintained by the 

secretary of state, and the requestor has specified that he wishes the information to 

be provided on “print-image” nine track tape. You ask whether the information 

must be provided in the form requested .I You characterize your request as a 

request for an open records decision under section 7 of the Open Records Act. 

However, as you do not dispute the public availability of any requested information 

under section 3(a) of that act, we are responding to your questions pursuant to 

chapter 402 of the Government Code.* 

Nine track tape is computer readable magnetic tape used for the. storage or 

‘You also ask, should we conclude that the print-image tic track tapes most be provided, for 

a determination of the charges that may be assessed for the tapes. Additionally, you ask whether the 

Open Records Act or sections 405.018 and 405.031 of the Government Coda govern access to the 

requested information.’ As will be seen, we fmd tbat the print-image tapes need not be released. We 

believe this obviates the need to respond to your additional inquiries. 

?Section 7 of the Open Records Act drovides tbat if a governmental body has received a 

request for information which it believes to be within an exception to required public disclosure stated 

in section 3(a) of the act, and if there has been DO prior determination that the information falls within 

an exception, it mlLSt request a decision from the attorney general to determine whether the 

infomatioo is within that exception. Consequently, decisions under section 7 are limited to 

comideratioos necessary for detemdniag whether information may be withheld from public diszlosure 

under section 3(a). 

p. 201 
Honorable John Hannah. Jr. - Page 2 (DM-41) 

Nine track tape is computer readable magnetic tape used for the storage or 

transfer of information. In this instance, you advise that by use of the modifier 

“print-image”, the requestor means that he wishes to receive a nine track tape that 

includes coded formatting instructions that will facilitate the conversion of the information on the tape to microfiche. You advise that these formatting instructions 

are not directly relevant to the information on the tape but instruct the computer to 

arrange the information for printing directly from magnetic tape onto microfiche. 

These formatting instructions were supplied to the secretary of state by the vendor 

who converts the information onto microfiche pursuant to state contract. Secretary 

of state employees then prepared a program that enables the instructions to be 

added to the nine track tape supplied to the vendor for conversion to microfiche. 

You advise that the print-image tapes are produced periodically for transmission to 

the vendor. When the vendor has completed use of this tape, it is reused by the secretary of state’s office for other purposes. You do not produce or maintain “printimage” tapes except as necessary for conversion to microfiche. 

You advise that the information regarding corporations is~ currently made 

available to the public by the secretary of state in seven different ways, to wit: (1) 

microfilm, (2) microfiche, (3) magnetic tape, (4) on-line access as provided for in 

section 405.018 of the Government Code, (5) responses to inquiries over the telephone, (6) purchase or inspection of copies of ~original records, and (7) use of public 

access terminals. You stand willing to provide .access to the requestor in any of 

these ways. 

In Attorney GeneraI Opinion DM-30 (1991), we considered whether a county 

clerk must provide duplicate microfilm of county real estate records for purchase by 

the public. That opinion concluded that while a county clerk may provide such 

duplicate microfilm, the law does not impose a duty to do so. Attorney General 

Opinion DM-30, citing section 9(c) of the Open Records Act, reasoned that the 

Open Records Act requires governmental bodies to provide “suitable” copies. The 

opinion stated: 

What form of copies may be ‘suitable’ could vary 

depending upon the nature of the requested information. 

While it is not possible or necessary here to speculate upon 

every circumstance in which a suitable copy might consist of 

P. 202 
Honorable John Hannah, Jr. - Page 3 (DM-41) 

some form other than an ordinary paper reproduction, we can 

point, for example, to records on videotape or audiotape where 

a paper transcription would be an inadequate substitute for the 

medium in which the information was originally recorded. 

With respect to deed records, however, it seems an ordinary 

paper copy would, in every case, be suitable to convey the 

information contained in the record to any member of the 

public. 

Attorney General Opinion DM-30 at 3: 

Certainly, the seven methods currently used by the secretary of state for providing public access to corporation records are “suitable” for conveying the information in those records to the public. We find nothing with respect to the information 

requested in this instance that would, as a matter of law, require the secretary of 

state to add an additional medium or format to its current repertory. See Attorney 

General Opinion JM-672 (1987); Gpen Records Decision No. 65 (1975). Furthermore, under the facts you present, the medium is in fact available to the requestor. 

Essentially then’what this requestor is seeking is the formatting instructions that 

allow conversion of the tape to microfiche. 

In Gpen Records Decision No. 581 (1990), this office considered the availability of computer programs used for the maintenance, manipulation, or protection 

of public property. In that open records decision, it was concluded that where information has no significance other than the maintenance, manipulation, or protection 

of public’property, it is not the kind of information made public by the Gpen 

Records Act. The only difference in the magnetic tapes desired by the requestor 

and the magnetic tapes that you routinely sell is the inclusion of the print-image 

formatting instructions. These formatting codes are not necessary to-the understanding of the ,information provided on magnetic tape and have no significance 

other than their use as a tool for manipulating the information to facilitate the production of computer-output microfiche .4 Accordingly, we think that these format3You supply information on nine track magnetic tape, aad the magnetic tapes that are 

currently available are prtided to purchasers with all the information necessary to tied and extract the 

information “fields” within the tape. 

4We note that the maaipulation of the data resulting from the print-image fonnattieg 

instructions is evident from the fiche themselves, which are available to the public. 

P. 203 
HonorabIe John Hannah, Jr. - Page 4 (DM-41) 

ting codes are not “information” independently subject to the Open Records Act. 

We conclude that the secretary of state is in compliance with the Open Records Act 

without making corporation information available in an additional format or 

medium to those currently offered. 

SUMMARY 

The seven methods currently used by the secretary 

of state for providing public access to corporation 

records are. “suitable” for conveying the information in 

those records to the public. Formatting codes are not 

“information” independently subject to the Open 

Records Act. The secretary of state is in compliance 

with the Open Records Act without making corporation 

information available in an additional format or 

medium to those currently offered. 

DAN MORALES 

Attorney General of Texas 

WILL PRYOR 

First Assistant Attorney General 

- MARYKELLER 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

JUDGE ZOLLlE STEAKLEY (Ret.) 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

RENEAHICKS 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

MADELEINE B. JOHNSON 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by John Steiner 

Assistant Attorney General 

P. 204