|Office of the Attorney General - State of Texas
December 6, 2000
Ms. Michelle Simpkins
Dear Ms. Simpkins:
You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 141881.
The Brushy Creek Municipal Utility District (the "district"), which you represent, received a request for all documents and correspondence relating to capital recovery fees due to the district from the city of Austin. You state that the district will disclose or has disclosed most of the requested information; however, you claim that the correspondence between the district's legal counsel and administrators is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.107 and 552.111 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted information.(1)
You contend that the submitted correspondence, in its entirety, is excepted from disclosure under section 552.107. Section 552.107(1) excepts information that an attorney cannot disclose because of a duty to his client. In Open Records Decision No. 574 (1990), this office concluded that section 552.107 excepts from public disclosure only "privileged information," that is, information that reflects either confidential communications from the client to the attorney or the attorney's legal advice or opinions; it does not apply to all client information held by a governmental body's attorney. Open Records Decision No. 574 at 5 (1990). Section 552.107(1) does not except purely factual information from disclosure. Id. Nor does it protect information reflecting communications between a governmental body's attorney and a third party. Id.
We agree that a portion of the submitted correspondence consists of privileged attorney-client communications that are protected by section 552.107(1) of the Government Code. For your convenience, we have marked the information that may be withheld from disclosure under section 552.107(1).
You also argue that the submitted information is excepted from disclosure under section 552.111. Section 552.111 excepts "an interagency or intraagency memorandum or letter that would not be available by law to a party in litigation with the agency." In Open Records Decision No. 615 (1993), this office reexamined the predecessor to the section 552.111 exception in light of the decision in Texas Department of Public Safety v. Gilbreath, 842 S.W.2d 408 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, no writ), and held that section 552.111 excepts only those internal communications consisting of advice, recommendations, opinions, and other material reflecting the policymaking processes of the governmental body. As section 552.111 generally protects only advice, opinion, and recommendations, any protection under section 552.111 will usually be no greater or less than the protection offered under section 552.107. See Open Records Decision No. 574 at 2 (1990). Therefore, upon review of the submitted information, we conclude that the district may not withhold under section 552.111 any of the information not excepted from disclosure under section 552.107.
To summarize, the district may withhold from the requestor the information we have marked under section 552.107(1) of the Government Code. The information not excepted from disclosure under section 552.107(1) is similarly not excepted under section 552.111, and it therefore must be released to the requestor.
If this ruling requires or permits the governmental body to withhold all or some of the requested information, the requestor can appeal that decision by suing the governmental body. Id. § 552.321(a); Texas Department of Public Safety v. Gilbreath, 842 S.W.2d 408,411 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, no writ).
Please remember that under the Act the release of information triggers certain procedures for costs and charges to the requestor. If records are released in compliance with this ruling, be sure that all charges for the information are at or below the legal amounts. Questions or complaints about over-charging must be directed to Hadassah Schloss at the General Services Commission at 512/475-2497.
Michael A. Pearle
Ref: ID# 141881
Encl. Submitted documents
cc: Mr. John C. McLemore
1. We note our error in issuing ORL 2000-3658 (2000), in which the district made a timely submission to this office of a request for a ruling, which included the documents at issue in the instant case. Due to an oversight on our part, we concluded that those documents were extraneous and not at issue. You have resubmitted the identical documents for our review, and we now consider your claimed exceptions against disclosure of this information.