The public is entitled by law to view and obtain copies of most state government documents, including computerized records regardless of format, the Tennessee Supreme Court said Monday in a decision stemming from a lawsuit filed by a newspaper.
“Our review is governed solely by the language in the Public Records Act and the clear mandate in favor of disclosure,” Chief Justice Riley Anderson wrote in the unanimous opinion.
Anderson said the language and meaning of Tennessee’s Public Records Act is “plain” and government agencies are required to comply, even with the advent of computers and move away from paper records. Under the act, government records, except those specifically exempted by the legislature, are available, regardless of the form in which they are kept. Citizens, the media and others asking for the records may be charged “actual costs” for disclosing the material, the court said.
“In the present case, we are confronted with an issue of first impression in Tennessee, that is, the application of the Public Records Act to information that is stored and maintained via computerized technology,” the chief justice wrote. “Our interpretation will have broad application because of the increasing use of such technology to store public information.”
Justices granted the appeal to address whether a government agency, the Nashville Electric Service, should be required to disclose customer names, addresses and telephone numbers as a public record. The electric service did not dispute that the information falls under the Public Records Act, but argued that it is not maintained in NES computers in the exact format in which it had been requested by The Tennessean newspaper.
Also, the court considered whether a government agency may require payment of costs incurred in disclosing the information and the cost of notifying those whose names, addresses and telephone numbers had been requested. Justices agreed with a trial court finding that the information is a public record “consistent with the legislative mandate of providing the fullest possible public access to public records.” However, the Supreme Court disagreed with a trial court decision that the newspaper should be required to pay customer notification costs, estimated to exceed $86,000.
“Although The Tennessean concedes that NES could properly charge for the costs incurred in making or extracting the requested material from its existing records, it argues that the charges assessed under NES’s customer notification policy were not authorized by statute and amounted to an effective denial of records,” the chief justice wrote. “ . . . Those actual costs incurred by NES for disclosing the material requested by The Tennessean are recoverable by this statute. In contrast, there is no authority under the act allowing an agency to establish rules that would substantially inhibit disclosure of records.”
Anderson wrote that the court does not question “the sincerity or intention of NES in making a policy” aimed at protecting the privacy of customers, but the Public Records Act does not authorize a charge for mailing notices to customers that their records have been requested. He said only the legislature declares public policy in the state, including the rights of access under the Public Records Act.