A chief executive properly receives advice on important issues facing the state, even though no immediate decision may be required. The need for honest and open communication between the chief executive and advisors remains. B. Plaintiffs make two additional arguments based on law developed under FOIA Exemption 5 to support their claim that the withheld documents are not privileged. We have already discussed our unwillingness to limit the common-law executive privilege to predecisional communications relating to specific decisions. Second, plaintiffs maintain that the privilege does not protect from disclosure any factual material that is severable from the rest of the document.
Plaintiffs rely upon a statement contained in defendants' answers to plaintiffs' requests to admit.
It is admitted that the documents discussed factual as well as legal and policy considerations, but the documents were advisory. This statement, and the affidavit of James Volz, which also describes the withheld documents as providing legal and policy advice, make clear that the withheld documents are primarily advisory. Plaintiffs place great weight on defendants' admission that some factual considerations are discussed in the documents. We fail to see the significance of this statement. Any policy or advisory memorandum will contain some factual references.