Source: http://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/ftext/f15882.htm
Timestamp: 2014-08-02 06:33:01
Document Index: 231850305

Matched Legal Cases: ['§87', '§92', '§92', '§92', '§95', '§96']

FOIL-AO-15882
We are in receipt of your request for an advisory opinion concerning application of the Freedom of Information and the Personal Privacy Protection Laws to a request made to the State University of New York. Based on the materials you have provided, SUNY has denied access to a summary of a meeting regarding renewal of your employment with SUNY as a visiting professor. It is our opinion that SUNY’s responses to your requests are inconsistent with the Freedom of Information or the Personal Privacy Protection Laws. That being so, we offer the following comments.
The records which you have submitted indicate that the timeliness of SUNY’s responses are not in keeping with the law. By refusing to interpret your January 31, 2006 letter in which you state "I am appealing Mr. Luntta’s determination" as an appeal of the denial of your request, we believe that SUNY failed to respond to your appeal. Regardless of whether you mentioned the Personal Privacy Protection Law in your initial request, upon receipt of written requests, SUNY is bound by statutory provisions contained within both the Freedom of Information and Personal Privacy Protection Laws. While we do not recommend that you take legal action, it is our opinion that you have a right to do so.
Further, it is our opinion that SUNY should make the summary available to you in its entirety, based on the following analysis:
The response by the Department’s records access officer indicates that the records at issue were withheld in their entirety pursuant to §87(2)(g). In this regard, we point out that one of the contentions offered by the New York City Police Department in a decision rendered by the Court of Appeals was that certain reports could be withheld because they are not final and because they relate to incidents for which no final determination had been made. The Court of Appeals rejected that finding and stated that:
In short, that intra-agency material does not reflect a final agency policy or determination would not represent an end of an analysis of rights of access or an agency's obligation to review the contents of a record.
"...Although the term 'factual data' is not defined by statute, the meaning of the term can be discerned from the purpose underlying the intra-agency exemption, which is 'to protect the deliberative process of the government by ensuring that persons in an advisory role [will] be able to express their opinions freely to agency decision makers' (Matter of Xerox Corp. v. Town of Webster, 65 NY2d 131, 132 [quoting Matter of Sea Crest Constr. Corp. v. Stubing, 82 AD2d 546, 549]). Consistent with this limited aim to safeguard internal government consultations and deliberations, the exemption does not apply when the requested material consists of 'statistical or factual tabulations or data' (Public Officers Law 87[2][g][I]. Factual data, therefore, simply means objective information, in contrast to opinions, ideas, or advice exchanged as part of the consultative or deliberative process of government decision making (see, Matter of Johnson Newspaper Corp. v. Stainkamp, 94 AD2d 825, 827, affd on op below, 61 NY2d 958; Matter of Miracle Mile Assocs. v. Yudelson, 68 AD2d 176, 181-182) id., 276-277).] In our view, insofar as the records at issue consist of recommendations, advice, opinions or constructive material, for example, they could be withheld under Freedom of Information Law; insofar as they consist of statistical or factual information, we believe that they must be disclosed, unless a separate exception is applicable.
Most importantly, since you requested records pertaining to yourself, however, the Personal Privacy Protection Law (Public Officers Law, Article 6-A) applies and the result would be different. The Freedom of Information Law deals with rights of access conferred upon the public generally; the Personal Privacy Protection Law deals with rights of access conferred upon an individual, a "data subject", to records pertaining to him or her. A "data subject" is "any natural person about whom personal information has been collected by an agency" [§92(3)]. "Personal information" is defined to mean "any information concerning a data subject which, because of name, number, symbol, mark or other identifier, can be used to identify that data subject" [§92(7)]. For purposes of the Personal Privacy Protection Law, the term "record" is defined to mean "any item, collection or grouping of personal information about a data subject which is maintained and is retrievable by use of the name or other identifier of the data subject" [§92(9)].
Rights conferred upon individuals by the Personal Privacy Protection Law are separate from those granted under the Freedom of Information Law. Under §95 of the Personal Privacy Protection Law, a data subject has the right to obtain from a state agency records pertaining to herself, unless the records sought fall within the scope of exceptions appearing in subdivisions (5), (6) or (7) of that section or §96, which would deal with the privacy of others. It is our opinion that because none of the exceptions would apply, the summary should have been made available to you.
Finally, it appears SUNY’s refusal to grant access to the summary is inconsistent with bylaws adopted by the Department of Theatre, College of Arts and Sciences, on May 6, 2004, which indicate that the Department will "follow procedures established by University regulations." Relevant Policies and Guidelines set forth in Administrative Procedures for the Preparation of Recommendations for Promotions and Continuing Appointment, indicate
"The summary of the departmental/school meeting must be prepared by a member of the teaching faculty or professional staff other than the department chair or dean and approved by the department/school as a whole. The summary should indicate the date on which the minute was approved. The summary must be a separate document in the file (i.e., reports of department/school personnel committees or recommendations from a department chair or dean are not satisfactory substitutes).
"The summary of discussion and the departmental/school vote must be given to the candidate before the case is forwarded to the next level of review."
As adopted by SUNY and the Department, these regulations appear to require SUNY to promulgate a summary of the discussion, separate from a record of the vote, and provide a copy to the professor who is the subject of review.
In our opinion, regardless of when the summary has been approved, it should be made available upon request to the subject of the review. In an effort to enhance understanding of and compliance with the law, a copy of this advisory opinion will be forwarded to Ms. Hengsterman and Mr. Luntta.