57 N.Y.2d 300 (1982)
A memorandum prepared by a public agency for internal use, addressing a position in pending or prospective collective bargaining, is not a “final determination” accessible under the Freedom of Information Law.
Summary
The petitioner, an arbitrator, sought access under the Freedom of Information Law to a memorandum prepared by the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) regarding his potential redesignation. The MTA denied access, arguing the memorandum was intra-agency material exempt from disclosure because it would impair collective bargaining negotiations and wasn’t a final agency determination. The court held that because collective bargaining positions are fluid until a binding agreement is reached, the memorandum was pre-decisional and thus exempt from disclosure under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(g). This case clarifies the scope of FOIL exemptions in the context of ongoing labor negotiations.
Facts
The petitioner had been an impartial arbitrator for transit disputes for 30 years. The president of MTA, Ravitch, allegedly stated that the MTA did not want to redesignate the petitioner. The petitioner requested access to a memorandum documenting his unfavorable rulings under the Freedom of Information Law after a news report detailed Ravitch’s statements. The MTA denied access, claiming it would impair collective bargaining and was exempt intra-agency material.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed an Article 78 proceeding seeking judicial review and access to the memorandum. The Supreme Court initially ordered the MTA to provide the memorandum. The Appellate Division reversed, holding the memorandum was exempt intra-agency material. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether a memorandum prepared by a public agency for internal use, addressing a position it may take in pending or prospective collective bargaining negotiations, constitutes a “final agency policy or determination” subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Law?
Holding
No, because the fluidity of positions during collective bargaining means that internal memoranda reflecting potential negotiating stances are considered pre-decisional and not final agency determinations, and thus are exempt from disclosure.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that characterizing any position taken during collective bargaining as a “final agency determination” would be unrealistic due to the inherent give-and-take of negotiations. The court stated, “Given the fluidity of positions of parties engaged in such procedure, striving to arrive at mutually acceptable accommodations with the give and take endemic to the process of collective bargaining, it would be unrealistic to characterize as a ‘final agency determination’ any stance which either party to the process might appear to be adopting prior to a binding agreement’s having been reached by both sides.” The memorandum was prepared for internal use by the MTA’s bargaining team. Because the designation of an impartial arbitrator was indisputably a subject of negotiation, the MTA’s stance was considered unfixed and alterable. Therefore, the memorandum was exempt under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(g) as intra-agency material that was not a final agency policy or determination. The court explicitly declined to address whether the memorandum was exempt under paragraph (c) or whether post-decision materials are obtainable as final agency determinations under the statute.