Case Name: Republican Party of Ark. v. State, ex rel. Hall
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1966-03-28
Citations: 240 Ark. 545
Docket Number: 5-3804
Parties: Republican Party of Ark. v. State, ex rel. Hall
Judges: McF addin, J., dissents.
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 240
Pages: 545–555

Head Matter:
Republican Party of Ark. v. State, ex rel. Hall
5-3804
400 S. W. 2d 600
Opinion delivered March 28, 1966
G. Thomas Eisele, for appellant.
Bruce Bennett, Attorney General; Fletcher Jackson, Asst. Attorney General, for appellee.

Opinion:
Jim Johnson, Justice.
This is a petition for writ of mandamus to require the Treasurer of Arkansas to make public certain of the internal or working records of the Treasurer's office, in particular, bank deposit records.
On March 4,1965, appellant Dr. Wayne Babbitt, vice chairman of the Republican Party of Arkansas, appeared at the office of appellee Nancy Hall, Treasurer of the State of Arkansas. Appellant gave appellee a letter written on Republican party stationery requesting the Treasurer to provide the party with "a detailed listing of where the public funds of Arkansas are on deposit and the current total of said funds in each hank." Appellant offered to return the following week for appellee's reply. Appellee forthwith sent appellant's letter to the Attorney General with the following request: "Will you please advise this office if the records of the hank deposits in the various state and national banks over the state are public records. Also, please advise if this office is permitted to give the complete list to anyone requesting the information." The opinion of the attorney general pointed out certain state records, "amongst other things, . . . [records of] State Penitentiary inmates, state hospital patients, students in our institutions of higher learning, children in our children's colony" are not by their nature "public" records. The opinion went on to say that, "There is no constitutional or statutory authority for the State Treasurer to furnish information which she deems inappropriate in the public interest," and advised appellee that, "In view of'the foregoing, I think you are soundly justified in refusing Mr. Babbitt's request." Following the directions of the Attorney General, Mrs. Hall declined to exhibit the requested records.
On June 4, 1965, appellant individually and as vice chairman of the Republican Party of Arkansas filed a complaint in Pulaski Chancery Court against appellee for a writ of mandamus to require appellee to make the records on bank deposits and withdrawals of state funds (since appellee took office on January 1, 1963) available for inspection and copying at reasonable times. On behalf of appellee the Attorney General filed an answer on June 15,1965, denying that the records are public per se or that the records should be made public for political purposes, praying dismissal of the complaint for want of equity, that no lawful purpose would be served by such complaint, and because "mandamus will not lie to compel the performance of a purely discretionary duty of appellee."
(At this time the General Assembly, in extraordinary session, passed the state treasury management law [Ark. Stat. Ann. § 13-421 - 13-431 (Supp. 1965).] This act, best known for requiring interest on bank deposits of state funds, also requires the Treasurer to prepare a daily and cumulative summary of transactions of each of the state funds, a report copy of which is to be available for public inspection. The act was approved June 7, 1965, and became effective September 6, 1965.)
After trial on June 22, 1965, the court dismissed the complaint on July 6,1965, from which comes this appeal.
In this suit appellant asks us to declare that he, an Arkansas citizen-taxpayer, has the right to examine and copy the day-to-day working records of the State Treasurer's office which reflect the location and amount of bank deposits and Avithdrawals of State funds, and to further declare that the Republican Party of Arkansas, of AArhich he is a member, as a class have the right to examine these same records and if it so desires to publish in the party neAVspaper information gleaned from this examination. We are startled that we need be asked. In a brilliant opinion on the same point (State v. Kelly, W. Va. 1965, 143 S. E. 2d 136) the West Virginia Supreme Court said recently:
" It is indeed difficult to envision a greater interest in public records which reflect the handling of public funds than that of a citizen and taxpayer whose own contribution to the public funds is directly involved. His is a real interest. It is such that, in the absence of some compelling reason to the contrary, he should be entitled to inspect the records pertaining thereto."
This right, of course, is tempered by reasonable regulation in the interests of safekeeping of the records and avoiding disruption of the work of this public office. These records which are kept in the ordinary course of the business of the State Treasurer are not personal to the Treasurer but are a part of the public transactions of the office.
It is obvious that exposure to public view of certain types of state records would be detrimental to individual citizens, such as adoption records and state hospital case histories; and, just as obviously, exposure to public view of other types of state records would be detrimental to the public pocketbook, such as highway department records of location of proposed highways. These types of records are not under consideration here.
Suffice it to say, our holding in Gaspard v. Whorton, 239 Ark. 849, 394 S. W. 2d 621 (on ballot applications), is equally apropos here: "The denial to the public of reasonable access to public records by public officials is not conducive to the perpetuation of our form of government. ' '
The Attorney General argues relative to the requested records that, ' ' They were just records of deposits in banks." . . . "There was no right under statute, common law, nor any other law to inspect these records of bank deposits." In answer to the argument that there is no common law right to inspect these records, we adopt as our own a rule earlier promulgated by the Michigan Supreme Court (Nowack v. Fuller, 243 Mich. 200, 219 N. W. 749, 60 A.L.R. 1351), that if there be any rule of the English common law that denies the public the right of access to public records, it is repugnant to the spirit of our democratic institutions. Regnat Populus—The People Rule—is the motto of Arkansas. It should ever remain inviolate.
The decree of the trial court is accordingly reversed and remanded with direction that the writ of mandamus issue.
McF addin, J., dissents.