Source: https://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/ftext/13194.htm
Timestamp: 2017-10-23 13:19:04
Document Index: 259836592

Matched Legal Cases: ['§3000', '§3000', '§3003', '§3004', '§3011', '§1133', '§3006', '§86', '§89', 'art 1401', '§87', '§1401', '§87', '§87']

FOIL-AO-13194
I have received your letter of January 28, as well as the materials attached to it. You have sought an advisory opinion concerning the propriety of an agreement ("the agreement") between the City of New York and the Rudolph W. Giuliani Center for Urban Affairs Inc. ("the Center"). Attachment A, appended to the agreement describes a variety of records, both paper and other media, formerly maintained by the Office of the Mayor, as well those maintained by his chief of staff, deputy mayors and their chiefs of staff, that have been transferred to the Center by the New York City Department of Records and Information Services ("DORIS"). A news article regarding the agreement indicated that 2,114 boxes of records were transferred to the Center late in December.
You have asked whether, under the agreement, "public access and document preservation is ensured in accordance with state law", whether it is "legal...to give physical control of these records to a private third party", and whether "there is any legal precedent for such an arrangement." If it is my view that "the agreement violates state law", you asked that I "suggest what remedies might exist."
It is emphasized at the outset that the Committee on Open Government is authorized to provide advice and opinions concerning the Freedom of Information Law. That statute does not include direction or requirements pertaining to the preservation or transfer of records. While I cannot offer advice relative to the retention or transfer of records, I note that the law concerning those issues is found in the New York City Charter ("the Charter"), Chapter 72, §§3000 to 3011.
Pursuant to §3000 of the Charter, a mayoral appointee, a commissioner, is the head of DORIS, and subdivision (1) of §3003 states that the commissioner "...shall be the chief archivist of the city and shall advise the mayor...on those matters concerning the preservation of the city's historical documentation." Subdivision (3) provides that the commissioner shall "establish standards for proper records management in any agency or government instrumentality funded in whole or in part from local tax levy monies...", and subdivision (4) states that the commissioner has "the power to exercise or delegate any of the functions and duties vested in such commissioner by law." Subdivision (1) of §3004 states that the municipal archives shall perform the following functions: "a. develop and promulgate standards, procedures and techniques with regard to archives management;
d. appraise, accession, classify, arrange and make available for reference all records which come into the possession of the archives; and
e. establish and maintain an archives depository for the storage, conservation, processing and servicing of records."
It is noted that subdivision (3) of §3011 defines the phrase "records management" to mean:
"...the planning, controlling, directing, organizing, training, promoting and other managerial activities involved in records creation, records maintenance and use and records disposition, including but not limited to, the management of correspondence, forms, directives, reports, machine readable records, microfilms information retrieval, files, mail, vital records, equipment and supplies, office copiers , word processing and source data automation techniques, records preservation, records disposal and records centers or other storage facilities..."
Subdivision (2) of that section defines the term "records" for purposes of the Charter to include:
"...any documents, books, papers, photographs, sound recordings, machine readable materials or any other materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official city business."
Additionally, §1133(b) of the Charter, formerly §3006, pertains to the disposal of records and the duty to "establish standards for the preparation of schedules for the disposition of records, [and] providing for the retention of records and archives of continuing value..."
In short, the Charter confers a variety of powers and duties upon DORIS and its commissioner relative to the management of City records.
The introductory portion of the agreement indicates that the Center is required to store documents in an appropriate "facility", and Article 1, section G of the agreement states in part that "the City retains ownership of the Documents, and ultimate control of the Documents resides in the City and DORIS"; section H provides that it is the intent of the Center "to provide to the public the substance of the Documents for research and study purposes." Section I states that the Documents "shall be the property of the City for the purposes of Freedom of Information Law....and any request for access pursuant to such statute shall be responded to by the City in the manner provided by law, as if such documents or copies were in the custody and control of the City."
While the provisions of the agreement cited above do not appear to be contrary to law, other aspects of the agreement, in my view, are inconsistent with the Freedom of Information Law and the interpretation of that statute.
Section A of Article 1 states in part that "[i]f the Center determines that any Document delivered to the Facility is not a public document properly included within the Documents, it shall contact the City, and the Parties shall reach a determination as to the proper treatment of such document." And most importantly, section M provides that:
"Whenever Rudolph W. Giuliani has a personal interest or right in a Document separate and apart from the interests and rights of the City, his approval shall be required before any such document may be released or disclosed by the Center to the public. Such approval shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, the approval of the City."
In this regard, the scope of the Freedom of Information Law is expansive, for it encompasses all government agency records within its coverage. Section 86(4) of that statute defines the term "record" expansively to include:
Based upon the language quoted above, the "documents" referenced in the agreement need not be in the physical possession of a City agency to constitute agency records; so long as they are produced, kept or filed for an agency, the law specifies and the courts have held that they constitute "agency records", even if they are maintained apart from an agency's premises.
In a decision rendered by the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, it was found that materials received by a corporation providing services for a branch of the State University pursuant to a contract were kept on behalf of the University and constituted agency "records" falling within the coverage of the Freedom of Information Law. I point out that the Court rejected "SUNY's contention that disclosure turns on whether the requested information is in the physical possession of the agency", for such a view "ignores the plain language of the FOIL definition of 'records' as information kept or held 'by, with or for an agency'" [see Encore College Bookstores, Inc. v. Auxiliary Services Corporation of the State University of New York at Farmingdale, 87 NY 2d 410. 417 (1995)].
Also significant is the first decision in which the Court of Appeals dealt squarely with the scope of the term "record", in which the matter involved documents pertaining to a lottery sponsored by a fire department. Although the agency contended that the documents did not pertain to the performance of its official duties, i.e., fighting fires, but rather to a "nongovernmental" activity, the Court rejected the claim of a "governmental versus nongovernmental dichotomy" and found that the documents constituted "records" subject to rights of access granted by the Law. Moreover, the Court determined that:
The point made in the final sentence of the passage quoted above appears to be especially relevant, for there may be "considerable crossover" in the activities of Mr. Giuliani as mayor and as a citizen.
Also pertinent is another decision rendered by the Court of Appeals in which the Court focused on an agency claim that it could "engage in unilateral prescreening of those documents which it deems to be outside of the scope of FOIL" and found that such activity "would be inconsistent with the process set forth in the statute" [Capital Newspapers v. Whalen, 69 NY 2d 246, 253 (1987)]. The Court determined that:
The holding in Capital Newspapers is particularly relevant in consideration of Article 1, section A. Again, that provision states in part that "[i]f the Center determines that any Document delivered to the Facility is not a public document....the Parties shall reach a determination as to the proper treatment of such document." From my perspective, any document or any information in some physical form transferred or delivered by a City agency to the Center constitutes a "record" that falls within the scope of the Freedom of the Freedom of Information Law. Any "prescreening" of a document to determine whether the document falls within the coverage of that statute would, in my view, conflict with the clear direction provided by the Court of Appeals and the language of the law itself.
"...respondents base petitioner's exclusion from certain materials by saying that some of the appointment books contain both personal and business appointments created for the Mayor's convenience. That contention, of course, has little probative meaning here:
'*** personal or unofficial documents which are intermingled with official government files and are being 'kept' or 'held' by a governmental entity are 'records' maintained by an 'agency' under Public Officers Law §86 (3), (4). Such records are, therefore, subject to disclosure under FOIL absent a specific statutory exemption' (Capital Newspapers v. Whalen, 69 N.Y. 2d 246, 248).
"The Court then went on to re-state the appellate conclusion that FOIL 'is to be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly interpreted so that the public is granted maximum access to the records of government' (citing Matter of Washington Post Co. v. New York State Ins. Dept., 61 N.Y. 2d 557, 564). Any narrow construction of FOIL, it was added, 'is contrary to these decisions and antagonistic to the important policy underlying FOIL' (p. 52 of Capital Newspapers, supra)."
In short, I reiterate that, in my view, any "document" transferred or delivered to the Center by any City agency would constitute a "record" that falls within the coverage of the Freedom of Information Law.
With respect to section M of Article 1, again, that provision prohibits the Center from disclosing a document to the public absent the approval of former Mayor Giuliani "[w]henever [he] has a personal interest or right in a document separate and apart the interests and rights of the City." From my perspective, since the documents are City records, and since all City records are subject to rights of access conferred upon the public by the Freedom of Information Law, the former mayor has no "right" to determine which documents are accessible to the public. On the contrary, the law serves as the basis for determining rights of access.
There is nothing in the Freedom of Information Law that authorizes a person or agency to claim, promise or engage in an agreement conferring confidentiality in the context of your inquiry.
In a case in which a law enforcement agency permitted persons reporting incidents to indicate on a form their preference concerning the agency's disclosure of the incident to the news media, the Appellate Division found that, as a matter of law, the agency could not withhold the record based upon the "preference" of the person who reported the offense. Specifically, in Johnson Newspaper Corporation v. Call, Genesee County Sheriff, 115 AD 2d 335 (1985), it was found that:
Similarly, the Court of Appeals has held that a request for or a promise of confidentiality is all but meaningless; unless one or more of the grounds for denial appearing in the Freedom of Information Law may appropriately be asserted, the record sought must be made available. In Washington Post v. Insurance Department [61 NY2d 557 (1984)], the controversy involved a claim of confidentiality with respect to records prepared by corporate boards furnished voluntarily to a state agency. The Court of Appeals reversed a finding that the documents were not "records" subject to the Freedom of Information Law, thereby rejecting a claim that the documents "were the private property of the intervenors, voluntarily put in the respondents' 'custody' for convenience under a promise of confidentiality" [Washington Post v. Insurance Department, 61 NY 2d 557, 564 (1984)]. Moreover, it was determined that:
"Respondent's long-standing promise of confidentiality to the intervenors is irrelevant to whether the requested documents fit within the Legislature's definition of 'records' under FOIL. The definition does not exclude or make any reference to information labeled as 'confidential' by the agency; confidentiality is relevant only when determining whether the record or a portion of it is exempt (see Matter of John P. v Whalen, 54 NY2d 89, 96; Matter of Fink v Lefkowitz, 47 NY2d 567, 571-572, supra; Church of Scientology v State of New York, 61 AD2d 942, 942-943, affd 46 NY2d 906; Matter of Belth v Insurance Dept., 95 Misc 2d 18, 19-20). Nor is it relevant that the documents originated outside the government...Such a factor is not mentioned or implied in the statutory definition of records or in the statement of purpose..."
There are other aspects of the agreement that are troubling as well. For instance, section H of Article 1 states that "[i]t is the intent of the Center that it ultimately be able to provide to the public access to the substance of the Documents for research and study purposes." Aside from the considerations expressed in the preceding commentary, the purpose for which records are sought under the Freedom of Information Law is irrelevant. It has been held that when records are accessible under that statute, they are equally available to any person, regardless of status or interest [see Burke v. Yudelson, 368 NYS 2d 779, aff'd 51 AD2d 673, 378 NYS 2d 165 (1976) and M. Farbman & Sons v. New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 62 NY2d 75 (1984)].
Further, although the "documents" may be in the physical custody of the Center, for reasons expressed earlier, I believe that they are in the legal custody of DORIS. If a request for those records is made under the Freedom of Information Law, DORIS, in my view, would be required to comply with that law, as well as the procedural regulations promulgated pursuant to that law. By way of background, §89(1) of the Freedom of Information Law requires the Committee on Open Government to promulgate regulations concerning the procedural implementation of that statute (see 21 NYCRR Part 1401). In turn, §87(1) requires each agency to adopt rules and regulations consistent those promulgated by the Committee and with the Freedom of Information Law. Under Mayor Koch, uniform rules and regulations for New York City were adopted and, to my knowledge, remain in effect. One element of the Committee's regulations involves the designation of one or more persons as "records access officer" (see §1401.2). The records access officer has the duty of coordinating an agency's response to requests for records. Part of the duty to "coordinate" in my view would relate to the manner in which the Center responds to requests made under the Freedom of Information Law for records in its possession. When such a request is made, I believe that the Center would be obliged to grant or deny access in accordance with law and the direction given by the records access officer, or transmit the request to the records access officer, who would respond in a manner consistent with law.
One of the few instances in which the Freedom of Information Law requires the maintenance of a record relates to a "subject matter list" of records. Specifically, §87(3)(c) requires that each agency shall maintain:
"...a reasonably detailed current list by subject matter, of all records in the possession of the agency, whether or not available under this article."
The subject matter list is not required to identify every record maintained by an agency. However, it is required to indicate, by category, the kinds of records maintained by (or for, in this instance) an agency in reasonable detail. Whether DORIS maintains such a list separate from that attached to the agreement in a manner that satisfies §87(3)(c) is unknown to me. However, if no such list has yet been prepared, I believe that DORIS is required by that provision to do so.
Lastly, you asked what remedies might exist to rectify deficiencies in the agreement. Section B of Article 2 of the agreement provides in part that "[e]ither party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon 90 days' written notice." That being so, the City could terminate the agreement or renegotiate to ensure that its terms are fully consistent with law. If neither of those actions is taken, I believe that you or any person could initiate a judicial proceeding to seek to invalidate those portions of the agreement that may be inconsistent with law.
In an effort to resolve the matter, a copy of this opinion will be forwarded to Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel. I hope that I have been of assistance.
cc: Michael A. Cardozo