Court cases with an impact on state FOIA, Private companies subject to public records requests

1.) It affirmed the decision that intercollegiate athletic conferences which receive funding from public institutions are in fact public bodies subject to records requests.
2.) The financial records of athletic conferences do not fall within the states exemption for scholastic records and do not fall within the federal education records exemption.

"(1) whether the entity performs a governmental function;
(2) the level of government funding;
(3) the extent of government involvement or regulation; and
(4) whether the entity was created by the government."^[3]

1. Heavy involvement in governmental affairs and functions can be sufficient to make a private board or committee a public body subject to the law.
2. There is no good faith exemption to the awarding of attorney fees.

1. That the inclusion of the word "agency" within the definition of public body in the Michigan Freedom of Information Act was not meant to be construed so as to include all agents of the state but was meant to be construed narrowly so as to include only government offices and departments.
2. That the Michigan Freedom of Information Act requires that funding be direct and not in exchange for goods or services in order for a private corporation or entity to be considered a public body thereby affirming the decision made in State Defender Union Employees v Legal Aid & Defender Association of Detroit.

1. Advisory boards, created to serve a public purpose, are public bodies subject to the Montana Public Records Act.
2. Decision-making processes which are directly affected by violations of the right to know/participate can be voided by court action.

2.) Entities who serve an instrumental role with regard to the actions of government agencies but who were not created by those government agencies are still subject to the Maryland Public Information Act.

1. The release of documents may invalidate a future claim of exemption, but the court is required to perform an in camera inspection to determine if the information and documents are actually the same.
2. Retirement Systems which are funded and controlled by state agencies are public bodies subject to the Michigan Freedom of Information Act.

1. This case affirmed the definition of agency found in Grand Forks Herald v. Lyons, which defined agencies of public bodies to be all entities who have been contracted by the public bodies to provide a typically governmental function. This prevents public bodies from concealing public records in private corporations.
2. This case affirmed the decision in City of Grand Forks v. Grand Forks Herald, which established that personal records of public employees are public records subject to the act.

1. This case exempted the records of the court from the North Dakota Open Records Statute.
2. This case established the definition of agency to be, "a relation created by law or contract whereby one party delegates the transaction of some lawful business to another."^[5]

1.) This case affirmed the ruling of Red & Black Publishing Company v. Board of Regents in determining that an organization that acts as the vehicle for a public body to accomplish a government function is in fact considered a public agency.
2.) Personal files are not automatically exempt but exempt material may be redacted from them.

1.) That subcontracting bid records conducted by a private agency employed by a public body are not public records.
2.) Established a 2 prong test for making the records of private companies serving a public function subject to the Iowa Open Records Law. This was later overturned by Gannon and Nichols v. Iowa Board of Regents.

1. It established the following criteria to be considered when determining if a private entity is a public body:

• The entity's origin.
• The function the entity performs.
• The entity's authority, (advisory or decision-making).
• The level of government funding.
• The level of government control.
• If the officers and employees of the entity are also government officials.

1. Extra weight needs to be placed on an entities authority and its capacity to directly alter law and policy as opposed to functioning in a strictly advisory capacity.

1. Is the private entity publicly funded?
2. Is the private entity controlled by the government?
3. Was the private entity created by a governmental body? I

2.) This case also established that public agencies may only take deposition from individuals requesting public records in order to determine the public interest in the record if the agency has already proven that the record in question is exempt from the law.

1. Public hospitals cannot separate themselves from the public bodies that created them and are thus subject to the Missouri Sunshine Law.
2. Missouri Trade Secret laws do not create an exemption for public records information that would otherwise be available to the public through records requests.
3. Individuals entering into contract with government reserve no right to privacy about the contract.
4. Affirmed the decision of Librach v. Cooper, namely that employee contracts are not exempt as personal records.

1. It affirmed the criteria listed in Schwartzman v. Merritt Island Volunteer Fire Dept., which established the definition of "acting on behalf of a public body"
2. It affirmed the decision in Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid & Associates v. State ex rel. Schellenberg, which established that private corporations could be considered public bodies if they were critical to the decision making process of a public body.

1. Advisory boards who are the sole policy decision makers can be considered public bodies subject to FOIL and the New York Open Meetings Law.
2. Secret voting, though permitted by the open meetings law, is not permitted under FOIL due to records requirements for detailed accounts of voting.

1. New York law does not allow separate functions of a public body to be dissected and considered as distinct when determining if the body in question was in fact subject to FOIL.
2. This case established that classroom materials of state colleges and universities are not exempt under the FOIL.
3. This case rejected the idea that classroom materials were deliberative in nature and thus exempt under FOIL.

1. if the records were prepared by the private entity while fulfilling a function of a public body
2. if the public body monitors the private entity while it is performing that function
3. the public body has access to the records in order to monitor the private entity.

1. That hospitals which receive public funds and serve a clear public purpose as a hospital providing services to the community with the permission and mandate of a municipal governing body are considered public bodies themselves.
2. Public funding can come in the form of land leased at no cost.

1. This case affirmed the notion that any "entity organized for rendering service to residents of the community and supported by public taxation is a public institution."^[7]
2. This case established that records of disciplinary action and termination were not exempt under personal privacy exemptions or police and criminal investigation records.

This case also established that separate spending records highlighting the use of state funds and non-state funds was sufficient to protect the records of non-state funds from public records requests.

• Whether the corporation was funded by a governement agency.
• Whether the corporation served a public function.
• Whether it appeared to be a public entity
• Whether or not the corporation was subject to some degree of control by a government body
• Whether or not a government body had access to the records of the corporation.

2.) The Alabama law includes all "records that are reasonably necessary to record the business and activities required to be done or carried on by a public officer so that the status and condition of such business and activities can be known by our citizens."^[8]

1.) It established that the use of outside organizations to perform functions that are typically performed by public agencies subjects all records relating to the public function held by those outside organizations to the public records act.
2.) It extended the obligation of the public agency contracting with an outside organization to perform a public function to obtain and provide access to all of the outside organizations records relating to the public function.

"(1) whether the entity performs a governmental function;
(2) the level of government funding;
(3) the extent of government involvement or regulation; and
(4) whether the entity was created by government."^[9]

1. The definitions of public agency and public body within the open records and open meetings acts respectively need to be considered separately, though the case alluded to their high degree of compatibility and correlation.
2. This case established that high degrees of control of a private corporation by a public body can be construed as the public body permitting the creation of the private corporation which would qualify that private corporation as a public agency subject to the OPRA.

1. If the entity was performing a public function.
2. If the entity was government funded.
3. If the entity was controlled by a governing body.
4. If the entity was created by legislation.

The court specified that not all criteria are required but that all criteria are considered.

2.) Records requests for records in digital form need not be delivered, nor should be delivered through allowing the requestor to view the original database, but can be delivered in any electronic.

1. Volunteer organizations are subject to the same standards for determining if a private organization is subject to FOIL as organized extensions of the government.
2. You cannot separate the functions of private bodies between governmental and non-governmental functions and release only the records relating to governmental functions. Instead the entity must be considered in its entirety.
3. Temporary transfers of records do not alter an agencies possession of records and do not remove their responsibility for complying with records requests for those records.

1. Expanded what can be considered public funding to include University Foundations.
2. Rejected the notion that common law practices separating public and private could be used to override FOIA policy.