Source: https://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/ftext/f17945.html
Timestamp: 2017-10-24 09:41:26
Document Index: 86366624

Matched Legal Cases: ['§89', '§84', '§87', '§87', '§57', '§84']

FOIL-AO-17945
We are in receipt of your request for an advisory opinion regarding application of the Freedom of Information Law to records requested from the Department of Insurance. Please note that while the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisory opinions concerning application of the Freedom of Information Law, this office has no authority to compel an entity to comply with law; only a court can determine whether there has been a “violation” of the Freedom of Information Law. It is our hope that our opinions are educational and persuasive, and that they serve to resolve problems and promote understanding of and compliance with the law.
Based on the information that you provided in conjunction with and subsequent to your request, we offer the following comments.
First, the Freedom of Information Law provides direction concerning the time and manner in which agencies must respond to requests. Specifically, §89(3)(a) of the Freedom of Information Law states in part that:
The amendments clearly are intended to prohibit agencies from unnecessarily delaying disclosure. They are not intended to permit agencies to wait until the fifth business day following the receipt of a request and then twenty additional business days to determine rights of access, unless it is reasonable to do so based upon "the circumstances of the request." From our perspective, every law must be implemented in a manner that gives reasonable effect to its intent, and we point out that in its statement of legislative intent, §84 of the Freedom of Information Law states that "it is incumbent upon the state and its localities to extend public accountability wherever and whenever feasible." Therefore, when records are clearly available to the public under the Freedom of Information Law, or if they are readily retrievable, there may be no basis for a delay in disclosure. As the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, has asserted:
"The determination of whether a period is reasonable must be made on a case by case basis taking into account the volume of documents requested, the time involved in locating the material, and the complexity of the issues involved in determining whether the materials fall within one of the exceptions to disclosure. Such a standard is consistent with some of the language in the opinions, submitted by petitioners in this case, of the Committee on Open Government, the agency charged with issuing advisory opinions on FOIL" (Linz v. The Police Department of the City of New York, Supreme Court, New York County, NYLJ, December 17, 2001).
Further, and with respect to fees charged for paper copies of records, we note that the Freedom of Information Law permits an agency to charge a maximum of $.25 per page up to 9 x 14 inches (§87([1][b][iii]). And, as you are aware, the Freedom of Information Law was amended in 2006 and now states in relevant part that: “All entities shall, provided such entity has reasonable means available, accept requests for records submitted in the form of electronic mail and shall respond to such requests by electronic mail...” Based on that provision, agencies are required to transmit requested records via email when they reasonably have the ability to do so.
We note that the Department has agreed to transmit a list of complaints to you via email or on a disk, rather than requiring you to pay $36. The basis for the $36 fee was not clarified, despite your request for an explanation based upon our recommendation. Under the law, when a record that you have requested consists of 144 pages, an agency would have the authority to require payment of $36 ($.25 x 144 pages), and we agree with your contention and the Department’s acknowledgment that when an agency provides a record via email, there is no authority to charge for photocopies. Further, when an electronic file cannot be reasonably conveyed via email, the law allows an agency to charge the actual cost of reproducing the record (§87[1][b]), which in this case would include the cost of the disk on which the file is stored and transmitted.
With respect to the agency’s indication that it routinely retains complaint files for two (2) calendar years after closing cases, we note that the Freedom of Information Law pertains to existing records. When an agency indicates that it does not maintain or cannot locate a record, an applicant for the record may seek a certification to that effect. Section 89(3) of the Freedom of Information Law provides in part that, in such a situation, on request, an agency "shall certify that it does not have possession of such record or that such record cannot be found after diligent search."
It is emphasized that government agencies and their employees routinely destroy records for sound reasons, in keeping with the law, yet they are not permitted to destroy records at will. Specifically, §57.05 of the Arts and Cultural Affairs Law provides that the Commissioner of Education is empowered:
In view of the foregoing, records cannot be destroyed without the consent of the Commissioner of Education, and state agencies cannot destroy or dispose of records until the minimum period for the retention of the records has been reached. The provisions relating to the retention and disposal of records are carried out by a unit of the State Education Department, the State Archives, which has promulgated a retention schedule applicable to state agencies. It is our understanding, based on that retention schedule (http://www.archives.nysed.gov/ a/records/mr_pub_genschedule.pdf) that records that are the subject of a FOIL request are required to be maintained until the FOIL request and appeal period has expired, plus an additional six months.
Finally, the Department has indicated that it will “hold open your FOIL file for 60 days from the date of this email to allow your review of this lengthy list of complaints.” From our perspective, every law must be implemented in a manner that gives reasonable effect to its intent, and we reiterate out that in its statement of legislative intent, §84 of the Freedom of Information Law states that "it is incumbent upon the state and its localities to extend public accountability wherever and whenever feasible." In our opinion, this offer is reasonable and in keeping with the spirit and intent of the law. We also believe that should you face unforeseen circumstances and require an extension of the 60 day window, a written request to the Department would be a reasonable approach to inform the Department and secure additional time for review.
cc: Paul Orkwis