THE ATIWRNEY GICSERAL 

OF TESAS 

Au-.TE%AIB 78711 

February 26, 1974 

The Honorable Walde.en D. WilEon, 

Executive Secretary 

Opinion No. H- 242 

Board of Vocational Nur6e Examiner6 Re: Applicability of Article 6252-174 

406 Sam Hou6ton State Office Bldg. V. T. C. S., to the record6 of 

Austin. Texas 78701 licemees maintained by the Board 

of Vocational Nur6e Examiner6 

Dear MB. Wilron: 

You have requerted our opinion in answer to a 6erics of quertionr concerning the applicability of the Open Record6 Act, Article 6252-17r, 

Vernon’6 Texa6 civil statuter, to V6riOU6 liC6nBing record6 of your 

Board: 

(1) What item6 on the licen6ee ma6ter file are 

con6idered confidential? 

(2) Are namer, addreBre6, birthdates, licen6e 

number6 and eocial recurity number6 of particular 

licensees con6idered confidential? 

(3) May the Board refuse to grant a request 

becau6e of it6 magnitude? 

(4) What are the obligation6 of the Board in 

re6pondfng to requert6 from other 6tate and 

federal agencie6 requesting major information 

on the master file to be used for research and 

6tUdy for MriOUs nUr6ing prOjeCtB? If the 

information is di6clo6abie, how should costs 

be determined for reproduction of this material? 

(5) Doe6 Section 6(a)(9) make the contents of the 

licensing examination public information, or are 

the contents excepted from disclosure under 

Section 3? 

p. 1121 
1 .” 

. . ’ ’ 

.1 

The Honorable Waldeen D. Wilron, page 2 (H-242) 

The Board of Vocational Nurre Exarntnerr i6 created and governed 

by Article 4528~. V. T. C. S. We find nothing in that rtatute which would 

make the information unavailable to a member ofe public. 

Section 3(a) of the @en Record6 Act provide6: 

“(a) All information collected, arsembled, or 

maintained by governmental bodie6 purruant to law 

or ordinance or in connection with the tranraction 

of official businerr ir public information and available to the public during normal bUBine66 hour6 of 

any governmental body, with the following exceptions only:” 

, 

Since “governmental body” is defined by Sec. 2(l)(A) of the Act to 

include any board within the executive branch of the rtate government. 

in our opinion the Board of Vocational Nurse Examiner6 ir 6ubject to 

the mandate of Sec. 3(a) of the Act. 

The maeter file, referred to in your firrt quertion.ir comprired 

of the initial file and the annual renewal card. The former contains 

the licensee’6 name, addre66, birth date, 6ocial recurity number, 

age, 6ex. marital statur. license number, date of graduation from 

nursing school, date of rtate board examination, examination grades, 

date of license, whether license i66Ued by waiver or by examination, 

the school code and whether the license is current or delinquent. The 

renewal card seeks to bring much of thi6 information up to date and, 

additionally, ask6 about employment status and area, general education, attendance at and degrees from college, availability of in 

service training, and a6k6 for a yes or no answer a6 to whether the 

licensee ha6 been arrested for a felony or mfrdemeanor, other 

than a minor traffic violation, since la6t September 1. 

None of the information contained on these card6 appear6 to be 

excepted from disclo6ure by any exception contained in Sec. 3(a) 

of the Act. It is our opinion, therefore. that the information contained 

in the licensee master file should be made public upon requert. Particularly, we do not believe that any of it, if di6closed, would violate 

a constitutionally protected right of privacy. See Attorney General 

Opinion H-90 (1973). 

p. 1122 
:; . ‘. -7 ’ * 

. 

. 

The Honorable Waldeen D. Wilron. page 3 (H-242) 

Your 6econd quertion refer6 to information in the ma6ter file 

and, in our opinion, the 6ame answer rhould apply. 

Your third quertion ark6 whether the magnitude of a requert affect6 

the irrue of dirclo6ability under the Act. 

Our answer i6 “No”. Generally rpeaking, neither the rize of the 

reque6t nor the per6on mating it affect6 consideration of the ba6ic 

issue of di6ClOtability a6 far a6 the Board of Vocational Nurse 

Examiners ir concerned. 

We appreciate the fact that practical problem6 of compliance 

may from time to time confront governmental bodier ruch a6 

yours. However, the Act doe6 not authorize thi6 office to consider those difficultie6 in deciding the basic que6tion of whether 

information ir public. A request mu6t include rufficient detail 

to make identifiable the exact type of information reque6ted. The 

governmental body may ask for clarification if it cannot rea6onably understand a particular request. But when the particular 

type of information reque6ted is identifiable, the only analysis 

permi66ible under the Act is whether that type of information is 

public. 

Apprehension ha6 been expre66ed by Borne about relea6ing 

information to persons with purely commercial motive6,or motive6 

that are otherwise characterized a6 euspect. The Act doe6 not permit 

analysis of the requestor’ motive in determining the hric question 

of disclosability. Section 5(b) specifically provide6 that “Neither 

the custodian nor hi6 agent who control6 the u6e of public record6 

&all make any inquiry of any person who applies for fn6pection 

or copying of public record6 beyond the purpose of e6tabliBhing 

proper identification and the public record6 being requested.” See 

Open Records Decision No. 8 (1973). 

Question 4 raises separate consideration for state and federal 

agencies. Our office ha6 previously recognized the need to maintain 

an unrestricted flow of information between state agencies. See 

Attorney General Opinion M-713 (1970). The Open Records Act does 

p. 1123 
. . 

‘. 1 . 

. . The Honorable Waldeen D. Wilson. page 4 (H-242) 

not undercut that policy. Information which ir not required to be 

di6ClOBed to the public under the Act can rtill be tranrferred between l tate agencier without violating it6 confidentiality or dertroying it6 confidential character. 

hi regard t0 COBt6 Of providing information t0 Other l genCie6. 

the open Record6 Act provide6 for a determination of COBt6 by consultation between the agency from whom the information ir requerted 

and the State Board of Control, aa provided by Section6 9(a) and 9(b) 

of the Act. Such co6t6 might al60 be governed by the Interagency 

Cooperation Act, Art. 4413(32). V. T. C. S. While cooperation with 

federal agencier ir desirable even where information i6 being reque6ted that ir not required to be 6upplied by the State of Texae 

under federal law, the policy 6upporting interchange of information 

among rtate agencies i6 ab6ent when a federal agency reque6t6 

information not required by law to be divulged to it. E6peCially 

where information, non-di6closable to the public, i6 involved, 

the 6tate cannot effectively a66ure that federal agencier, which 

function under a different “Open Record6 Law”, (6ee 5 US C., Sec. 552) 

will maintain state record6 with the 6ame eye toward6 conffdentiality 

that &ate agencies would be bound to do under the law6 of Texas. This 

lack of control by the, 6tate doe6 not preclude the right of federal 

agenciecl to have access to public information of the State. It doe6 

preclude them from aCce66 to non-dirclorable information, unless 

Some Other hW require6 it6 di6ClOBUre. 

With regard to cost6 of reproducing information, in the absence 

of a particular rtatute or federal requirement. a federal agency 

6hould be treated, under the guideline6 of Section 9, a6 any “person” 

requesting information. 

Your fifth question aeks whether the content6 of the licensing 

examination is public information. 

Section 6(a)(9) of the Open Record6 Act specifically make6 public 

information “instructions as to the scope and contents of all . . . 

examination6. . . . ” 

p. 1124 
. 

L The Honorable Waldeen D. Wilson. page 5 (H-242) 

We believe that Section 6(a)(9) contemplate6 publicity on what 

the examination ir to be about when one i6 required by 6tate law to 

pa66 ruch an examination a6 a condition to receiving rtate certification in the area examined; it doe6 not contemplate publicizing 

the quertionr on the examination itrelf. Obviourly, ruch a policy 

wa6 not intended under the Act, otherwire prior acce66 to examination que6tionr would render all rtate examination6 uBele66. 

We cannot arcribe to the Legirlature an intent to achieve an ab6urd 

re6ult. 

Your agency ir required to adminieter examination6 to qualified 

applicant6 for licenrure by Section 4(d) of Article 4528~. V. T. C. S. 

We believe that the rtatutory authority to conduct examinationr 

nece66arily include6 the authority to maintain the confidentiality of 

the 6pecific questions with which the applicant’6 knowledge i6 to be 

tested. Thus, the examination u6ed by the Board ir excepted from 

disclo6ure under the Open Record6 Act under Section 3(a)(l) a6 

it i6 information autborired to be held confidential by rtatutory law. 

SUMMARY 

File6 of a ficenlriag agency containing routine 

information concerning the 6tatu6 of a licenree, 

including whether or not hi6 license is current, 

are disclorable under the Open Record6 Act. The 

identity of the requeetor and the magnitude of the 

request do not affect disclosability of public information. 

Very truly yours, 

Attorney General of Texas 

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

p. 1125