New York Law Review

Tag: fundraising

  • New York State United Teachers v. Brighter Choice Charter School, 18 N.Y.3d 560 (2012): FOIL Exemption for Lists Used for Fundraising

    New York State United Teachers v. Brighter Choice Charter School, 18 N.Y.3d 560 (2012)

    Under New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), an agency may deny access to records, including lists of names, if disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, such as when the list would be used for fundraising purposes.

    Summary

    New York State United Teachers (NYSUT) sought payroll records, including teacher names, from several charter schools via FOIL. The charter schools refused to disclose the teachers’ names, arguing it would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy because NYSUT would use the list for fundraising (i.e., soliciting membership). The New York Court of Appeals held that disclosing the names was not required under FOIL because NYSUT’s intended use of the list to solicit members constituted fundraising, triggering a FOIL exemption. The Court reasoned that the purpose for which the information is sought, not the public or private status of the individuals, determines whether the exemption applies.

    Facts

    NYSUT requested payroll records from six charter schools, including teacher names, titles, salaries, and home addresses. The charter schools partially denied the request, withholding teacher names and home addresses. NYSUT administratively appealed without success and then commenced legal action. NYSUT sought the teacher’s names, titles, and salaries. The Charter Schools agreed to provide titles and salaries but continued to withhold the names.

    Procedural History

    NYSUT commenced a hybrid CPLR article 78/declaratory judgment action in Supreme Court, seeking disclosure of the teacher’s names. Supreme Court ordered disclosure. The Appellate Division affirmed, reasoning that NYSUT dropped its request for home addresses and that the Charter Schools were required to keep basic employee information pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87 (3)(b). The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether charter schools must disclose the names of their teachers pursuant to FOIL when the requesting party intends to use the names for membership solicitation, which the charter schools argue constitutes fundraising, thus triggering an exemption to disclosure.

    Holding

    No, because NYSUT’s intent in requesting the teacher names is to expand its membership and, by extension, obtain membership dues; thus the request falls within the fund-raising exemption of Public Officers Law § 89 (2)(b)(iii).

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that while charter schools are subject to FOIL and must maintain a record of employee names, titles, and salaries under Public Officers Law § 87 (3)(b), there’s an exception. Under Public Officers Law § 89 (2), an agency may deny access to records if disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, including the “sale or release of lists of names and addresses if such lists would be used for commercial or fund-raising purposes.” The court relied on Matter of Federation of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Clubs v New York City Police Dept., 73 NY2d 92 (1989), stating that it is the purpose of the solicitation that matters, not what it is called. Giving the term “fund-raising” its “natural and most obvious meaning” (Matter of Capital Newspapers, Div. of Hearst Corp. v Whalen, 69 NY2d 246, 251 [1987]), NYSUT’s intent to expand its membership and obtain dues qualifies as fundraising. The court also noted that ordering disclosure of the names would not further the policies of FOIL, which are to assist the public in making informed choices about governmental activities. The court emphasized that the purpose for which the information is sought drives the analysis. The fact that NYSUT dropped its request for addresses is irrelevant; the fundraising exemption is implicated even when only names are sought, as they can be linked to addresses through other means. The court stated, “it is precisely because no governmental purpose is served by public disclosure’ of this information that section 87 (2) (b)’s privacy exemption falls squarely within FOIL’S statutory scheme”.

  • Arms Access Info. v. New York City Police Dept., 79 N.Y.2d 102 (1992): Freedom of Information and Privacy Exemptions for Fundraising

    Arms Access Info. v. New York City Police Dept., 79 N.Y.2d 102 (1992)

    Under New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), an agency may deny a request for names and addresses if the list would be used for fundraising purposes, which includes soliciting membership dues to support an organization’s activities.

    Summary

    Arms Access Information sought the names and addresses of New York City rifle and shotgun permit holders from the New York City Police Department under FOIL, intending to solicit membership dues. The Police Department denied the request, arguing that releasing the information would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy because the organization intended to use the list for fundraising. The New York Court of Appeals held that soliciting membership dues to support an organization’s activities constitutes “fundraising” under FOIL, and thus the information could be withheld.

    Facts

    Arms Access Information, a pro-gun advocacy group, requested the names and addresses of individuals holding rifle or shotgun permits from the New York City Police Department. The group intended to use the information to solicit membership dues to support its activities, including lobbying and providing legal advice to members. The Police Department denied the request, citing the privacy exemption in Public Officers Law §§ 87(2)(b) and 89(2)(b)(iii), arguing that the release would be used for fundraising purposes.

    Procedural History

    Arms Access Information initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to compel the Police Department to release the requested information. The Supreme Court initially granted the petition, then adhered to its original determination after reargument, despite finding the New York City Administrative Code inapplicable. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a request under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) for the names and addresses of persons holding rifle or shotgun permits may be denied as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy because the requesting organization seeks the information to solicit membership dues to support its activities, which the Police Department argues constitutes “fund-raising” as the term is used in Public Officers Law § 89 (2) (b) (iii).

    Holding

    Yes, because soliciting membership dues to support the general activities of an organization and further its overall objectives constitutes “fund-raising” under FOIL, thus allowing the agency to deny the request to protect the privacy of permit holders.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals acknowledged FOIL’s strong policy of public access to government records but emphasized that exemptions must be given their natural and obvious meaning. The court held that soliciting membership dues to support an organization’s activities constitutes “fund-raising” within the meaning of Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b)(iii). The court reasoned that the purpose of the solicitation, to obtain funds to support the organization, is what matters, regardless of the form the solicitation takes or the incidental benefits offered to those who pay dues. The court distinguished this case from those where the information request served a governmental purpose or where disclosure would inform the public about governmental activities. Here, the court found that no governmental purpose was served by disclosing the permit holders’ information. The court stated that the Legislature classified releasing names and addresses for fundraising efforts as an unwarranted invasion of privacy, and it was not the court’s role to weigh the degree of annoyance that would result from the solicitations. “It is enough that the Legislature has seen fit to classify the release of the names and addresses of individuals for use in such fund-raising efforts as an unwarranted invasion of their privacy.”