New York Law Review

Tag: Salary Data Disclosure

  • Doolan v. Board of Cooperative Educational Services, 48 N.Y.2d 341 (1979): Access to Government Records Under Freedom of Information Law

    Doolan v. Board of Cooperative Educational Services, 48 N.Y.2d 341 (1979)

    The Freedom of Information Law mandates the disclosure of salary and fringe benefit data compiled by one government agency for another, unless a specific statutory exception applies.

    Summary

    This case concerns a request under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) for salary data compiled by the Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES). The petitioner, Doolan, sought access to a BOCES report detailing salary and fringe benefits for teachers and administrators. BOCES denied the request, arguing the report was a subscription service for member school districts only. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that FOIL requires disclosure of the requested data, as no specific exemption applied and the purpose of FOIL is to ensure governmental transparency.

    Facts

    The Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) annually prepares a “Negotiation Information Services Salary Study for Administrators,” compiling salary and fringe benefit data for educational personnel in Suffolk County. This report is part of a subscription service provided to member school districts. Doolan, a resident of Suffolk County and president-elect of a school administrators association, requested copies of the report for several years. BOCES denied the request, stating it was exclusively available to subscribing member districts.

    Procedural History

    Doolan appealed the denial pursuant to the Public Officers Law. After failing to receive a timely response, Doolan initiated an Article 78 proceeding. Special Term ruled in favor of Doolan, ordering disclosure upon payment of transcription costs. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that a subscription-based report falls outside FOIL’s purview. The New York Court of Appeals then reversed the Appellate Division’s decision.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Freedom of Information Law excepts from its disclosure requirements salary and fringe benefit data compiled by one agency for the use and information of another, when the agency provides such data on a subscription basis to specific members.

    Holding

    No, because the Freedom of Information Law mandates broad access to government records, and none of the enumerated exceptions applied to the requested salary data.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized that the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) establishes a broad right of public access to government records. The court stated: “The legislature therefore declares that government is the public’s business and that the public, individually and collectively and represented by a free press, should have access to the records of government in accordance with the provisions of this article.” The Court reasoned that nothing in FOIL limits its application to agencies directly involved in policy decisions or determinations. The statute’s language, particularly the reference to “statistical or factual tabulations or data” in the exception for inter-agency materials, demonstrates an intent to include data collected by one agency for another. The Court rejected BOCES’ argument that the Education Law restricted access to the report to only those school districts that paid for the service. The Court noted that Doolan was not a school district attempting to circumvent the Education Law’s restrictions. BOCES failed to demonstrate that disclosing the salary data would impair present or imminent collective bargaining negotiations, as required to fall under an exception to FOIL. The Court found that BOCES’ public policy argument, that disclosure would constitute an unlawful contribution of public funds, was without merit, arguing that meeting the public’s right to access to information is fulfillment of a government obligation, not a waste of public funds. The Court further explained that “[t]he public policy concerning governmental disclosure is fixed by the Freedom of Information Law; the common-law interest privilege cannot protect from disclosure materials which that law requires to be disclosed”.

  • Doolan v. Board of Cooperative Educational Services, 48 N.Y.2d 341 (1979): Access to Government Records Under Freedom of Information Law

    Doolan v. Board of Cooperative Educational Services, 48 N.Y.2d 341 (1979)

    The Freedom of Information Law requires government agencies to disclose factual data, even if that data was compiled for use by other agencies and access to it is otherwise restricted under different statutes.

    Summary

    James Doolan sought access to a salary study compiled by the Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) that was usually only available to member school districts. BOCES denied the request, arguing the service was a cooperative effort funded by its members. The Court of Appeals held that the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) mandates disclosure of factual data held by an agency, regardless of whether the agency created the data or whether other statutes limit its access. The Court emphasized that FOIL prioritizes public access to government information, and the burden is on the agency to prove an exception applies.

    Facts

    The Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) prepared an annual report compiling salary and fringe benefit data for teachers and administrators in Suffolk County. This report, titled “Negotiation Information Services Salary Study for Administrators,” was part of a subscription service provided to member school districts. James Doolan, identifying himself as a Suffolk resident and president-elect of the School Administrators Association of New York State, requested copies of the report for 1974-1977. BOCES denied his request, stating the report was only available to subscribing member districts.

    Procedural History

    Doolan appealed the denial within BOCES, and after not receiving a response, filed an Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court. Special Term ruled in favor of Doolan, ordering disclosure at a fee covering the cost of transcription. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that a report offered only on a subscription basis was not within the purview of FOIL. Doolan appealed to the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the Freedom of Information Law requires an agency to disclose factual data it has compiled, even if the data is primarily intended for use by other agencies.
    2. Whether the fact that access to the information is restricted under the Education Law to paying subscribers affects its availability under the Freedom of Information Law.
    3. Whether disclosure of the data would impair present or imminent contract awards or collective bargaining negotiations, thus falling under an exception to the disclosure requirements of FOIL.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because the Freedom of Information Law mandates disclosure of all records, with specific exceptions, and the agency from which information is sought need not be the agency that makes the decisions to which the information relates.
    2. No, because petitioner is not a school district seeking to circumvent the Education Law, and any conflict between the Education Law and the Public Officers Law should be resolved when a school district attempts to use the latter to avoid the restrictions of the former.
    3. No, because the respondent did not demonstrate that disclosure of the requested data would impair present or imminent collective bargaining negotiations.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) establishes a broad policy of open government, requiring disclosure of government records unless a specific exception applies. The court emphasized that FOIL’s language refers generally to “governmental decision-making” and “statistics leading to determinations,” indicating that the agency holding the data need not be the one making the policy decisions based on it. The Court cited the language of the statute specifying statistical and factual tabulations among the materials that must be disclosed. The Court rejected BOCES’s argument that the Education Law restricted access, noting that Doolan was not a school district attempting to avoid payment. The Court stated that it would address any potential conflict between the Education Law and FOIL when a school district attempts to use FOIL to circumvent the Education Law’s restrictions. Regarding the exception for impairing collective bargaining, the Court held that BOCES failed to demonstrate that disclosing the salary study would actually impair ongoing negotiations. The Court noted that the burden is on the agency claiming an exception to prove that it applies. The Court also dismissed arguments based on public policy and the Constitution, finding that FOIL fixes the public policy concerning governmental disclosure and that providing access to information fulfills a governmental obligation rather than constituting a gift of public funds. The Court emphasized that “[m]eeting the public’s legitimate right of access to information concerning government is fulfillment of a governmental obligation, not the gift of, or waste of, public funds.”