### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00332- CV

M ic hae l M ur phy, App e lla nt

v. City of Austin , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN303935 , HO NORAB LE SCOTT H. JENKI NS, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N The que stion prese nted by this case is whether the pay roll rec ords of a subcontra ctor on a public wor

ks project c onstitut e “public inf ormation” t h at is subject to disclosure under the Texas Publi c Information Ac t. See Tex. Gov’t C o d e An n . § 552.002 (West 2004). Appellant Michae l Murphy

reque sted that the City

of Austin disclose copies of pa y roll rec ords maintained by a subcontra ctor relating to a public construc tion project. The City denied Murphy ’s re quest pursuant to a letter r

uling f rom the Attorney

Gene ral de termining that the rec ords wer e not public information. Murphy then soug ht a writ of manda mus to compel the City

to disclose the re cords, whic h the trial
c ourt de nie d. Murp hy a

pp e a ls, c la imi ng in a sin g le iss ue that the or de r s ho uld be re ve rs e d b e c a

us e the re cords satisfy

the Act’ s definition of “public infor mation.”2 BACK GR OUND Th e City of Au sti n en te re d in to a c on tr a c t w ithM. B . H ome Con str uc tio n Se rv ic e s, I n c. , i nDe ce mb er

2 0 0 2 t o re n o v at e t he Austin-B erg strom I nterna tional Airport’s o p er at i o n s b u i l d i n g. I n J une 2003, Micha el Murphy , a member of the City ’s Construction Advisor y C ommitt ee a nd org anizer for

the I nternational Brothe rhood of Ele ctrica l Workers L ocal 520, r equeste d copies of the
cer tified pay roll rec ords from Crane Electric and/or ADB C onstruction, two companies that Murphy believed w ere working as subcontra ctors on the a irport projec t. Murphy s u b s e q u e ntly acknow ledg ed at ora l argument that the records of ADB Construction are not at i ssue, and that he is only seeking the disclosure of

pay roll rec ords from Cra

ne Elec tric. Th e re c or ds so ug ht b y

Murp hy are re qu ir e d to be ma int a ine d b y Cr ane El e c tr ic pursuant to chapte r 2258 of the g overnme nt code, whic h states that “[a] contrac tor and subcontr actor shall keep a rec ord showing : ( 1) the name and occupation of eac h worke r employ ed by the contra ctor
or su bc on tr a c tor

in t he c on str uc tio n o f t

he pu bli c wo rk ; and

(2 ) t he a c tua l pe r d ie m w ages p a id t o
eac h worke r,” a

nd that “[t] he record shall be open at all rea sonable hours to inspec tion by the offic ers and ag ents of the public body .” Id
. § 2258.024 (West 2000); se e als o id . § 2258.021 (West 2000) (worke rs on public works pr ojects must be paid “preva iling wa g e”) . The c ontrac t executed betwe en the City and M.B . Home Construction Service s, I nc., expressly included the lan gu age of section 22 58 .0 24 in i ts t e rm s. Thus , Cr ane El e c tr ic wa s o bli g a te d, bo th s ta tut or ily and c on tr a c tual ly , to
ma int a in r e c or ds evi den c ingtha t it s e mpl oy e e s w e re pa id p re va ili ngwa g e s, and to m a ke tho se
re c or ds a va ila

ble fo r g ov e rnme nta l in sp e c tio n at r e a so na ble ho ur s.3 Th e City a sk e d th e Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l to de te rm ine wh e the r i t w a s r e qu ir e d to dis c los e these re cords. See id . § 552.304 (West 2004). The Attorne y Gene ral rule d that the City was “ not require d to make the r ecor ds available to the reque stor” bec ause “ the re quested pa y roll rec ords do not constitute public i n fo rm ation under se ction 552.002.” Te x . Att’y Gen. LA-5923 (2003)
. Ac c or din g ly , th e City re fu se d to disc los e the re c or ds , an d Mur ph y pe tit ion e d the tr ia l c ourt fo r a wr it of mandamus to compel the City to disclose them. Following the hea ring , the trial cour

t issued an
o rd er i nagr ee m en twi t h t h e A t t o rn ey Ge n er al ’s ru l i n g, “f

i n d [ i n g] as a m at t er

o f f ac tan d co n cl u d [ i n g]
as a matter of law ” th at t h e re co rds ar e not “public infor mation.” The c ourt did not make any additional finding s of fa ct or c onclusions of law. Murphy now appe als, asser

ting that the trial cour

t’s denial of ma

ndamus relie f wa s improper be cause it was based on a misint erpr etation of the te rm “public information.”
AN AL YSI S

Whether the reque sted documents are “public information” as define d b y s ec tion 552.002 is a question of law. City of Ga rla nd v . D all as Mo rn ing

Ne ws , 2 2 S. W. 3 d 3 5 1 , 3 5 7 ( T e x. 2 0 0 0). As such, w e re view the tria l court’s de cision de novo. Ci ty o f F o r t W o r th v . Co rn

yn , 86 S.W .3d 320, 322 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.).

The Te x as Public I nformation Ac t define s “public information” as “infor mation that is collected, a ssembled, or maintaine d under a law or or dinance or in c onnection with the tra nsaction of off icial business: (1) by

a g over n m en t al b o dy ; or (2) f or a g overnme ntal body and the g overnme ntal body

owns the in fo rm at i o n o r has a rig ht of ac cess to it.” Te x . Gov’t Code Ann.Ge or g e L on e y , a su pe rv iso r in the City ’s Con tr a c t Com pli anc e Of

fi c e , te sti fi e d th a t pr ivate 1 subcontrac tors are require d to maintain pay roll rec ords for the se re asons, and Murphy ag ree d at ora l argument that Crane E lectric was re quired to maintain pay roll rec ords for suc h “dual pur poses.” 4 § 5 52 .0 02 (a ). Th e pa

rt ie s a g re e tha

t su bs e c tio n ( 2) g ov e rn s th is d isp ute be c a us e Cr ane El e c tr ic is not a g overnme ntal body

and, henc e, subsec tion (1) does not apply . The pa rties also ag ree , based on section 2258.024 and the contra ct, that the rec ords wer e “maintained under a law” and that the City ha d a “ ri g ht o f a c c e ss” to t

he m. See id. § 2258.024. The pa rties disag ree , howeve r, whe t her Crane E lectric ’s pay

roll rec ords wer e maintained “ for a g overnmen t al body ,” as to satisfy the definition “public information” in section 552.002(a) (2).

Murp hy ur g e s th a t, a

bs e nt s ome e xce pti on in the Ac t, if an e nti ty is r e qu ir e d b y

statut e to m ai n t ai n re cords, then those rec ords ar e held “ for” the g overnme nt. Accor dingly , Murphy contends that Cra

ne Elec tric’s pa

y roll rec ords are maintained “for ” the City beca use the g overnme nt code a nd the contra ct obligate Crane Electric to keep suc h rec ords and to make those r ecor ds available for g overnme ntal inspection at re asonable hours. See id . The City claims that Murphy misint erpr ets section 552.002 bec ause he ignor es the “ for a g overnme ntal body ” prong , which is an essential element that must be proven indepe ndently of the other

require ments. The City

argues that Crane E lectric ’s re cords a re not maintaine d “for ” the City b ec au s e, re g ardle ss of its statutory and
con tr a c tu a l o b li g a ti o n s , Cr an e E le c tr ic is r e qu ir e d to ma in ta in

it s p ay r o ll r e c o r d s f

o r in d e p e n dent
re a so ns su c h a s so c ia l se c ur ity , in c ome ta x, and a c c ou nti ngpurp os e s. 1 Ne ith e r M ur

ph y no r t he City c ite any case s in vo lvi ngthe pr e c ise iss ue of wh a t is
re qu ir e d to satis fy

the “ fo r a g ov e rnme nta l body” po rt ion of se c tio n 5 52 .0 02 (a )( 2) ’s de fi nit ion . B oth5

p art i e s a s s e rt t h a t t h e i r p o s i t i o n i s s u p p o rt e d b y Blankenship v. B razos Higher Education Authority, Inc ., 975 S.W .2d 353 (Tex. App.—Waco 1998, pet. denie d). In Blan k e ns hip , a re quest was made fo r t he City of Wac o to pro du c e do c ume nts sh ow ing wh a t moni e s had be e n p a id t o tw o in div idu a ls by the B razos Hig her Educ ation Authority , a non-pr ofit org anization that issued reve nue bonds for t h e purcha se of student loans. Id
. a t 3 5 4
. A s h e r e , w h e t h e r W a c o h a d t o d i s c l o s e t he do c ume nts depend e d o n whether

the re cords we re c onsidered “ public information” unde r sec tion 522.002(a)( 2). Id . at 363. The c ourt noted that the Authority was operating “at the re quest of” a nd “on [] behalf

” of Waco, a

nd that Waco exercised substantial c ontrol over the Authority beca use Waco’s a

pproval
was re quired be fore the Authority could issue bonds or appoint a boa rd of dire ctors. Id . Ba sed on this evidence , the cour

t did not address whe ther the “ for a g overnme ntal body ” element was satisfied,
and re mand e d the c a se on ly to de te rm ine wh e the r Wac o ha d a “ ri g ht of a c c e ss” to t

he do c ume nts
. Id. ; see also Bay town Sun v. City of Mont Belvie u , 145 S.W .3d 268, 269-71 (Te x . App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2004, no pet.).

Murphy also relies on dic ta in Blan k e ns hip that “ re c or ds whi ch a pu bli c e nti ty

is entitled to examine are ‘ maintai n ed ’ fo r t hat public entity within the meaning of sec tion 522.002(a) (2).” See 975 S.W .2d at 363. Murphy urg es that a private e ntity ’s re cords a re ma intained “for ” a g overnme ntal body whene ver the g overnme ntal body has a rig ht to acc ess the rec ords. I t does not f ollow that a “r ight of

acc ess” a lone re nders the inf ormation “public.” This rea soning is cir cular and make s a sing le-prong ed inquiry out of two prong s: To satisfy section 522.002( a) (2), the inf or ma tio n mu st b e ma int a ine d un de r a law or in c on ne c tio n wi th t he tr ans a c tio n o f o ff

ic ia l bu sin e ss bo th ( i) fo r a g ov e rnme nta l body and (i i) the g ov e rnme nta l bo dy mus t own o r h a ve a

ri g ht o f a c c e ss6

to i t. Wh e re an e nti ty

is a c tin g in t

he ste a d o f a

g ov e rnme nta l bo dy , o r i s so in vo lve d in g overnme ntal operations as to be the func tional equivalent of a g overnme ntal body , co u rt s have
c on c lud e d th a t th e e nti ty ’s re c or ds we re su bje c t to dis c los ur e un de r the Ac t, e ith e r b e c a us e the e nti ty constituted a g ov er n m en t al body itself or bec ause the entity held the information “for” a go vernme ntal body
. See , e.g. , Baytown Sun , 1 45 S.W. 3d a t 26 9- 71 ; Blan k

e ns hip , 9 7 5 S. W. 2 d at 363. There is no such relationship here. Until the leg islature spea ks with a clea

rer voice, we may not broade n the scope of the statute to include pr ivate entiti es that, without more, mer ely contra ct with a g overnme ntal body or, as he re, subc ontrac t with a third party who in turn contra cts wi th a g overnme ntal body
.

That more tha

n a mer e contrac tual relationship i s require d to satisfy section 552.0 2 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) is s u

p p o r te d b y A tt o r ney Gene ral de cisions interpretingthe phra se “f or a g overnme ntal body ” to apply

only when a private e ntity

is acting “on beha lf of,” “at the re quest of,” or “under the direc tion of” the g overnme nt. Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD- 462 (1989), cited by Blan k e ns hip , 975 S.W .2d
a t 36 3; se e als o Tex. Att’y Gen. LA-2277 (2002) ; Tex. Att ’y Gen. LA-0066 (2002) . Such situations inc lud e wh e n a

n e nti ty is ca rr y ing ou t a task “ de le g a te d” to it by the g ov e rnme nt, “ wh ic h o the rw ise
wo uld have be e n le ft to the g ov e rnme nta l bo dy its e lf ,” or wh e re the e nti ty

is e mpl oy e d “ a s a

n a g e nt” of th e g ov e rn ingbo dy . T e x. Att’ y Ge n. ORD- 46 2 ( re c or ds of law f ir m c on sid e re d “ pu

bli c inf or ma tio n” be c a

us e the y we re pr e pa

re d at dir e c tio n of an d und e r s ub sta nti a l c on tr ol b y

Un ive rs ity of Houston, for w hich law f irm was ac ting a s ag ent). Ho we v er , i f t he private entity maintains
rec ords “f or its own purposes” and has c ontrol over its own methods and details of work, then the
r e c o r d s ar e n o tp u

b l i c i n f o r m a t i o nb e c a

u s e t h e y ar e n o tm a i n t a i n e d “ f o r ” t h e g o v e r

n i n g b o dy,7

reg ardle ss of whethe r the g overningbody has an a bility to investigate the re cords. See Tex. Att’y Gen. LA-1728 (2002)
.

I n mo r e r e c e n t r

u li n g s , th e A tt o r

n e y G e n e r a l h a s d ir e c tl y

a d dr e s s e d

th e qu e s tion prese nted her e—whe ther the pa y roll rec ords of a

subcontrac tor on a public w o r k s p r o je c t, ma in ta ined pursuant to cha

pter 2258, are “public information.” See , e.g. , T e x. A tt ’ y G e n . L A

- 6 0 4 4 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ; T e x. Att’y Gen. LA-49 2 5 (2003); Tex . Att’y Gen. LA-3026 (2003) ; Tex. Att ’y Gen. LA-0283 (2003)
. Although de cisions by

the Attorney

Gene ral a

re not binding , we a ffor d t h em due conside ration,
e sp e c ia lly in c a se s in vo lvi ngthe Te xas P ub lic I nf or ma tion Act , becaus e the Attor ne y Ge ne ra l is mandated to de termine whe ther re cords must be disclosed pur suant to t h at Act. Abbott v. City of Cor pu s Ch ris ti , 10 9 S.W. 3d

11 3, 12 1 ( Te x. Ap p. —A us tin 20 03 , n o p e t.) . In e a c h o f t he se de c isi on s, the Attorney

Gene ral rule d that the re cords f ailed to satisfy

the def inition of publi c information beca use the subcontr actor

did “not prepa

re the reque sted pay

roll rec ords as the a g ent o f t he [gover nmental body ],” but inst ead did so “ in th e p erf ormanc e of its own statutory duties under
s e c ti o n 2 2 5 8
. 0 2 4 o f th e [T e xa s ] G o v e r n me n t Co d e . ” See , e.g. , Tex. Att’y Gen. LA-6044 (2003)
. The Office of the Attorne y Gene ral a dopted this reasoningin its 2004 P ublic I nformation Ha ndbook, which states that se ction 552.002(a) (2) a ppli es “w h en a g overnme ntal body has contra cted with a private consultant to pr epar e information for the g overnme ntal body ” and “ [t ]he private consultant is a cting as the g overnme ntal body ’s ag ent in holding the re cords.” Gre g Abbott, Attorney Gen. of Tex., Pub. Info. Handbook (2004). Crane E lectric did not have a contra ct direc tly with the City

of Austin, but rather

was a subcontra ctor hire d by M.B. Home Construction Services, Inc. In turn, Crane Electric ’s worke rs8

wer e employ ed and pa id by it, a private e ntity , and we re not e mploy ees of the City . The City

did not exercise c ontrol over the me thod or details of Cra ne Electric ’s work. Fur

ther, the ta sk of maintaining Cr ane El e c tr ic ’s pa

y ro ll r e c or ds wa s n ot o ne that th e City wo uld be ob lig a te d to do its e lf

; th e City did not “deleg ate” this task to Crane Electric, a nd Crane E lectric was not maintaining these re cords

“ on be ha lf of ” the City . Ins te a d, Cr ane El e c tr ic ma int a ine d th e pa y ro ll r e c or ds fo r its ow n p ur po se s, including statutory

compliance , social sec urity , income tax, and acc ounting pur poses. As such, Murphy ’s ca s e is clea

rly distinguishable f

rom, and thus not supported by , Blan k e ns hip and the Attorney Gene ral de cisions upon which the Blan k e ns hip court re lied. See 975 S.W .2d at 363. The Attorne y

Gene ral rea ched the same conclusion in the instant c ase as it ha d in the other c ases invol v in g

s u b c o ntr a c to r s ’ p a

y r o ll r e cords, r easoning

that “Crane Electric does not prepa re the re quested pa

y roll rec ords as the a g ent of the c ity . Rather, Cra ne Electric does so in the p e r f o r ma n c e o f it s o w ns tatuto r

y d u ti e s u n d e r

s e c ti o n2 2 5 8
. 0 2 4 o f

th e Gove r

n me n t C o d e . ” T e x. Att’y Gen. LA-5923 (2003) . Giving du e co n s ideration to the Attorney Gene ral’s c onsistent int e rp re ta tio n of se c tio n 55 2. 00 2( a )( 2) a s e xclu din g the pa y ro ll r e c or ds of

su bc on tr a c tor s o n p ub lic works proje cts from t

h e d e f in it io n o f “ p ublic information,” we conclude that Crane E lectric ’s re cords do not fall within the statutory definition.

CO NC LU SION Be cause Crane Electric did not maintain its pa y roll rec ords “for ” the City , the re cords
are no t “pub li c in for matio n” a s d e fi ne d b y se c tio n 5 52 .0 02 (a )( 2) of the g ov e rnme nt c od e . A s a9

matter of la

w, the trial c ourt corr ectly denied Murphy ’s petition for a writ of mandamus. Murphy ’s sole issue is overrule d, and the c ourt’s orde r is aff irmed.

J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med Filed: F ebrua

ry 10, 2005