Opinion ID: 6108934
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Public Information Act Claim

Text: Finally, we turn to the City's assertion that the Pension System's claims for information pursuant to the TPIA are barred because (1) the TPIA only allows a suit against the City's public information officer and not the City itself, (2) the TPIA does not require the City to obtain information from another entity that is subject to the TPIA, and (3) the requested information is excepted from disclosure. Inherent and necessary to the proper and effective administration of the Pension System is access to relevant employee and payroll data. See id. § 8 (outlining detailed calculations for member contributions based on several factors including dates of employment and salary); id. § 8A (outlining detailed calculations for City contributions based upon sever al factors including the combined salaries paid to all members). Following our decision in Klumb confirming the board's authority to define employee as including employees of the corporations, the City did not respond to the Pension System's repeated requests for employee information and payroll information as to those employees. The TPIA provides that a requestor may file suit for a writ of mandamus compelling a governmental body to make information available, thus clearly waiving immunity from these particular suits. TEX. GOV'T CODE § 552.321(a). Accordingly, the Pension System sought mandamus compelling  the City to disclose the requested information. The City argues that according to A & T Consultants, Inc. v. Sharp , its public records officer, not the City itself, is the proper defendant. 904 S.W.2d 668 , 681 (Tex. 1995) (stating that a literal application of the mandamus provision is thus unworkable because a  governmental body has no duty to perform what a writ of mandamus would order-the disclosure of public records (emphasis added) ). The City contends that the waiver of immunity granted by the TPIA does not extend to the City but only allows a suit against its public records officer. Additionally, the City asserts that the term governmental body within section 552.321 is expressly defined to include a municipal governing body but does not include a municipality itself. See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 552.003(A)(iii) ; see also id. § 552.003(A)(iv). We disagree. In Sharp , we concluded that the comptroller was the proper party against whom mandamus relief should be sought under section 552.321 because the comptroller had the legal obligation to produce the public records for the governmental body. Sharp , 904 S.W.2d at 672-73, 681 . But we also noted that the language of this section specifically authorizes mandamus relief against the governmental body itself. Id. We suggested that the Legislature might take another look at section 552.321 but plainly acknowledged that, generally, [t]his discrepancy can be overlooked in most cases, and courts can treat petitions for writ of mandamus against governmental bodies and against public records officers interchangeably. Id. While in a few proceedings the exact identity of the respondent matters for the purposes of jurisdiction, the general rule applies in most cases. Id. We agree with the court of appeals that the identity of the respondent in this case does not matter for jurisdictional purposes. 513 S.W.3d at 131 . The Pension System may seek mandamus under the TPIA against either the City or its public information officer. We also disagree with the City's argument that the TPIA's reference to a governmental body, which includes a municipal governing body, does not include the municipality itself. See TEX. GOV'T CODE §§ 552.003(1)(A)(iii), .321(a). The City cites no support for its position and we have previously recognized cities as governmental bodies under the TPIA. See, e.g. , Kallinen v. City of Houston , 462 S.W.3d 25 , 27-28 (Tex. 2015) ; City of Garland v. Dall. Morning News , 22 S.W.3d 351 , 358 (Tex. 2000) ; see also City of Dallas v. Dallas Morning News, LP , 281 S.W.3d 708 , 714 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.) (The City is a governmental body as defined under the Act. (citing TEX. GOV'T CODE § 552.003(1)(A)(iii) ) ). Therefore, the City is a governmental body against which a requestor may seek enforcement under section 552.321(a). The City's additional arguments do not alter our foregoing analysis. While we agree that the corporations are themselves subject to the TPIA, the Pension System is not precluded from seeking the requested information from the City. Neither the TPIA nor article 6243h, section 2(u) contain any requirement that where multiple governmental entities possess the requested information, the suit must be brought against one entity in particular. And the System is correct that where the City has a right of access to the corporations' information, the City's TPIA obligations extend to that information. Finally, the City asserts that the Pension System seeks confidential information that is excepted from disclosure. The TPIA contains a process for asserting  an exception to disclosure, which involves seeking a determination from the attorney general as to whether the information is excepted. See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 552.301. However, if the governmental entity does not request an attorney general opinion and does not provide the requested public information, the information requested in writing is presumed to be subject to required public disclosure and must be released unless there is a compelling reason to withhold the information. Id. § 552.302. The City does not claim to have either requested a decision from the attorney general or provided the information; therefore, the Pension System's TPIA suit is proper. However, we further agree with the court of appeals that the System's suit is proper only as to the City and not as to the additional named defendants. The TPIA mandamus actions may not be maintained against defendants beyond the governmental body and its public records officer.