Opinion ID: 1860661
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Administrative Control

Text: After determining that the check was a public record, the trial court determined that Judge Fox had administrative control over the check pursuant to the FOIA. The FOIA provides for the examination and copying of public records: (a)(2)(A) A citizen may make a request to the custodian to inspect, copy, or receive copies of public records. (B) The request may be made in person, by telephone, by mail, by facsimile transmission, by electronic mail, or by other electronic means provided by the custodian. (C) The request shall be sufficiently specific to enable the custodian to locate the records with reasonable effort. (3) If the person to whom the request is directed is not the custodian of the records, the person shall so notify the requestor and identify the custodian, if known to or readily ascertainable by the person.     (e) If a public record is in active use or storage and therefore not available at the time a citizen asks to examine it, the custodian shall certify this fact in writing to the applicant and set a date and hour within three (3) working days at which time the record will be available for the exercise of the right given by this chapter. Ark.Code Ann. § 25-19-105(a)(2), (a)(3), (e) (Repl.2002) (emphasis added). Pursuant to subsection (a)(2)(A) and (B), Mr. James sent his request to Judge Fox by mail, and followed up with both mailed and oral requests when Judge Fox did not send all the requested documents. Pursuant to subsection (a)(2)(C), the request specifically asked for any and all documents which would evidence the source of funds used to pay for the federal court documents, including checks, check stubs, check requisitions or any other related documents. When Judge Fox did not provide copies of documents evidencing the source of the funds, Mr. James sent him a letter noting that the time for production of the documents had expired. Mr. James asked that Judge Fox either produce the requested documents or, if they did not exist, respond and state that they did not exist. Judge Fox did neither. At the hearing, Judge Fox claimed that he was not the custodian of the check written by David Eanes and, therefore, was under no obligation to produce it under Ark.Code Ann. § 25-19-105. The FOIA defines the custodian of a public record as the person having administrative control of that record. Ark.Code Ann. § 25-19-103(1)(A) (Repl.2002). The circuit court's determination that Judge Fox had administrative control over the check was, in effect, a determination that Judge Fox was the custodian of the check. The FOIA does not define the term administrative control. Judge Fox's argument below and on appeal is that he did not have administrative control over the check because he had no authority to force Mr. Eanes to obtain a copy of his canceled check. Judge Fox further argues that no evidence was provided that either he or Mr. Eanes had ever seen the canceled check, and that the circuit court confused Judge Fox's control over his court for control over his law clerk's private financial records held by the clerk's bank. [2] As stated previously, in City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, supra , we held that memoranda prepared by outside counsel for the City of Fayetteville were public records. Although the records were in the possession of outside counsel, we held they were not exempt from disclosure and the City was required to produce the documents. Here, Judge Fox did not make a requisition for a payment voucher from Pulaski County's purchasing department in order to pay for the certified copies of the federal pleadings. Clearly, such a payment voucher would have been a public record obtainable under the FOIA. Instead, Judge Fox bypassed the county purchasing system and used cash to purchase the records he used in his contempt case against Mr. Perroni. The fact that Mr. Eanes used a personal checking account to make up the difference between the cost of the copies and the amount of cash Judge Fox gave him did not move the transaction outside the realm of the FOIA. This case parallels City of Fayetteville v. Edmark in that Judge Fox (through his law clerk) may not substitute a private bank account for a public bank account and then claim he does not have possession of or control over the resulting public record. Similarly, in Swaney v. Tilford, 320 Ark. 652, 898 S.W.2d 462 (1995), we held that the Arkansas Development Finance Authority (ADFA) was required to produce working papers of outside auditors. In Swaney , the ADFA argued that, though it could produce the actual audits, the outside auditing firm had refused to release its working papers without a subpoena because the auditors considered the working papers confidential. Id. at 653, 898 S.W.2d at 463. The trial court found the ADFA was not obligated to obtain the outside firm's working papers. Id. We reversed, holding that it was the ADFA's responsibility to provide reasonable access for examination and copying of the records. Because the ADFA's arguments were almost identical to Judge Fox's arguments in this appeal, we quote our holding in Swaney : It is undisputed that the ADFA is not in possession of the records requested by the appellant. However, the statute clearly provides that a citizen have reasonable access to public records. The term custodian of the records has not been defined by statute or case law in Arkansas. The trial court found that the private [auditing firm] in this case was the custodian of the records and should therefore be subject to the Act. Nevertheless, the legislative intent of the Act supports the proposition that the agency must provide reasonable access to the requesting citizen, where it is undisputed that the records requested are public records pursuant to the Act. [The ADFA] argues that it does not have constructive possession or administrative control over the files of [the auditing firm], has in fact never seen the requested records, and that it cannot produce records it does not possess or have in its control. These factors are initially relevant to the determination of whether a document will be considered a public record.... Once that issue is conceded, the statutory scheme and the legislative intent of the Act mandates that the burden be placed on the appropriate state agency to make arrangements for reasonable access to the records in its office or the office of the private custodian. Appellee does not contend that it is otherwise not the appropriate governmental entity to which the FOI request should have been directed, nor was that issue developed or argued below. We hold that where the records in question are established as public records pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 25-19-103(1) and not otherwise exempted from disclosure, the appropriate governmental agency, in this case the ADFA, shall have the responsibility to provide reasonable access for examination and copying of such public records which are in existence at the time of the request, as provided by Ark.Code Ann. § 25-19-105. Swaney v. Tilford, 320 Ark. at 655-56, 898 S.W.2d at 464-65 (emphasis added). Here, as the ADFA did in Swaney , Judge Fox argues that he does not have constructive possession or administrative control over Mr. Eanes's check, that he has never seen the check, and that he cannot produce it. Judge Fox also argues that Swaney is distinguishable from the instant case because the ADFA contracted with the auditing agency in Swaney , and he did not contract with Mr. Eanes's bank. In other words, Judge Fox is drawing a parallel between the auditing firm in Swaney and Mr. Eanes's bank, rather than Mr. Eanes himself. That parallel is faulty. As in Swaney , where the ADFA asked the auditing firm to perform audits and the auditing firm created private working papers, here Judge Fox asked Mr. Eanes to purchase documents and Mr. Eanes created the check used to purchase those documents. Just as the State agency was required to disclose the auditor's working papers regardless of where they might have been stored, [3] the fact that Mr. Eanes's check is stored at his bank makes it no less accessible to him and, therefore, to Judge Fox. In fact, the FOIA provides a three-day period for the custodian to gather records stored elsewhere. See Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(e)(Repl.2002). The trial court found Judge Fox's arguments unpersuasive and made the following conclusions of law as to the question of whether Judge Fox was the custodian with administrative control over the check: 20. Giving due consideration to the preponderance and weight of legislative intent and the requirement of a liberal interpretation of the FOIA, this Court concludes that one who has administrative control is that public official or employee who is charged with the responsibility to manage or execute the public affairs or conduct of their office, department or agency. 21. In the present case, [Judge Fox] was the person charged with the administrative responsibilities of the office of the Circuit Judge, Sixth Division, for the Sixth Judicial District in Pulaski County, Arkansas. 22. Furthermore, Eanes was an employee of Pulaski County, Arkansas, and under the direct supervision of [Judge Fox]. 23. Eanes either had possession or the right of possession of the cancelled check. 24. Thus, [Judge Fox] had both the power and the responsibility under the Arkansas FOIA to either provide a copy of the cancelled check to Plaintiffs, or make arrangements for reasonable access to such records. In light of our previous opinions and our liberal construction in favor of disclosure, we cannot say the trial court's interpretation of the term administrative control is in error. As Judge Fox is the public official charged with the responsibility of managing the affairs and conduct of his office, we hold that the trial court correctly ruled that Judge Fox was the custodian of Mr. Eanes's check with both the power and responsibility under the FOIA to either provide a copy of the canceled check to Mr. James or to make arrangements for reasonable access to the check. In sum, we affirm the trial court's conclusion that the check drawn on Mr. Eanes's personal checking account was a public record as defined by Ark.Code Ann. § 25-19-101 et seq. We further affirm the trial court's ruling that Judge Fox, having administrative control over Mr. Eanes's check, pursuant to the provisions of the FOIA, had the responsibility to provide either a copy of the check or reasonable access to it. Affirmed. DICKEY, C.J., and GLAZE and CORBIN, JJ., dissent.