Opinion ID: 1280889
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is the Check Distribution List an Other Matter?

Text: Other matters subject to the public's right of access include documents which are not required by law to be filed as public records, but which relate to matters essential to the general welfare of taxpayers, such for example as matters of taxation, revenue, and the proceedings for carrying out of governmental projects at public expense.... Mathews, 75 Ariz. at 79-80, 251 P.2d at 896 (quoting Runyon v. Board of Prison Terms and Paroles, 26 Cal. App.2d 183, 79 P.2d 101 (1938)). In Mathews, this court found that documents generated by the Arizona Attorney General in conjunction with an investigation of the land commissioner's office constituted other matters held by the governor, who had received the documents in his official capacity. Similarly, in Moorehead v. Arnold, the court of appeals found that annexation petitions held by the city of Tucson were other matters. 130 Ariz. 503, 505, 637 P.2d 305, 307 (Ct.App. 1981). As the California Court of Appeal noted in City Council of Santa Monica, [t]here is no precise formula by which it can be determined whether a writing is such `other matter'; it depends in each instance upon the facts of the particular case. 204 Cal. App.2d at 75, 21 Cal. Rptr. at 901. Two factors are of particular importance: whether the document is held in the official capacity of the state officer; and, if so, whether the public has a legitimate interest in the document that outweighs any governmental promise of confidentiality that has been made. See Mathews, 75 Ariz. at 80-81, 251 P.2d at 895-96. The term other matters, therefore, includes only public matters. As one commentator wrote with regard to the California statute upon which our law is based: the courts early developed a limitation to the term other matters that removed some writings found in public offices from the scope of the inspection statutes. In effect, section 1227 has been construed as referring to other public matters. Public has been defined as of, pertaining to, or affecting, the people at large or the community. The definition, therefore, does not include records that reveal only the private affairs of citizens. Comment, Inspection of Public Records Under California Law, 50 CAL.L.REV. 79, 81-82 (1962) (footnote omitted, emphasis in original). In this case, there is no evidence that the treasurer received the check distribution list in his official capacity. Because the Community failed to establish the manner in which the treasurer came into possession of a copy of the list, Phoenix Newspapers argues that we must assume the treasurer held the list in his official capacity. We are unable to make this assumption because no statute connects such a document with any state officer and because the facts of this case illustrate quite clearly that the treasurer did not compile the list, did not transact any business with the list, and did not record any official business in the list. Thus, while the facts do not establish how the treasurer came into possession of the document  whether it was accidentally left in his office or sent there by design  the facts do make it impossible to assume with any degree of probability that he held the document in his official capacity as a state officer. If anything, the facts require exactly the opposite inference. Moreover, we are not convinced that Arizona citizens have a legitimate interest in knowing the identities of Indian allottees who were paid funds out of a federal escrow account when the policy of federal and tribal law is to keep such information confidential, the state has agreed to respect that confidentiality, and the information itself is not the property of the state or its citizens. Arizona's public record contains sufficient information to determine whether the state paid fair value for the land located in the freeway right-of-way. This is the extent of Arizona's public interest. If there was fraud in distributions between the Community and the allottees or between landowners after the state funds were transferred to the United States, this is a matter for federal and tribal authorities. Arizona has no control over a disbursement of tribal or federal funds to Indian beneficiaries. In short, under the accepted definition of the term, the facts here do not support a finding that the check distribution list is an other matter held in the treasurer's official capacity.