Could someone demand direct access to a Louisiana town's computer network to inspect public records?

Plain-English summary

The mayor of the Town of Iowa asked whether a person seeking public records could insist on viewing them directly through the town's computer network. In Opinion 03-0008, the Louisiana Attorney General said electronic communications used to conduct official business became public records subject to production. The town could allow a requester to view public records through its network, but it could also choose another means of access that was more convenient.

The distinction mattered because the network might contain records that were exempt from disclosure. The AG said the municipality had to safeguard exempt information whichever access method it chose. He also distinguished official-business communications from private communications on individual board members' computers, drawing on an earlier opinion.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2003. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

What the opinion meant at issuance

Municipal records custodians

The AG treated records of official business as subject to production even when kept electronically. He did not require the town to provide direct network access. If the town made such access available, or used another method, it still had to keep exempt information from being exposed.

People requesting town records

The opinion recognized access to public records held in the town's electronic systems. It did not give a requester a right to navigate the town's entire network or private database simply because some information there was public.

Local government employees

The opinion distinguished private communications from electronic communications used to conduct official business. It said the latter became part of the public record. It also described limits on access to confidential personnel and medical information, while identifying education, salary, tenure, rank, and title as generally disclosable information at the time.

Common questions

Q: Could a requester insist on using a town computer to inspect electronic records? A: The AG said the town could make public records available through its network, but could choose another means of access instead. The opinion did not require direct network access.

Q: Were government employees' electronic messages public records? A: The opinion said messages used for official business became public records subject to production. It did not classify every private communication by an employee as public.

Q: Why could the town limit access to its database? A: The AG noted that a database could hold information exempt from the Public Records Law. The town had to safeguard that information while providing access to material that was public.

Q: Did the opinion say all personnel files were open? A: No. It distinguished general information such as salary and title from personnel or medical information that would invade personal privacy.

Background and statutory framework

The request involved a person who demanded to view municipal records directly on the town's computer network. The opinion quoted R.S. 44:1's definition of public records, including information in electronic data processing equipment used for public business. It relied on earlier AG opinions about access to a private board database and communications on individual board members' computers. The opinion cited La. R.S. 44:4.1 for exceptions to public-records access and stated that exempt information had to be safeguarded. The first-page date stamp reads APR 0 1 2003 in the PDF extract. The official URL uses 03-0008; the printed heading uses 03-08.

Citations and references

Authorities in the opinion: R.S. 44:1 (public records); La. R.S. 44:4.1 (exceptions). The opinion also quoted Atty. Gen. Op. 02-271 and Atty. Gen. Op. 01-155.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/03-0008

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

~tate o~
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CIVIl DIVISION
P.O. 8ox 94005
BATON ROUGE
TEL.: (504) 342-7013
FAX: (504) 342-2090
RICHARD P. JEYOUB
70804-9005
ATTORNEY GENERAL

APR 0 1 2003
90-C Public Records
OPINION 03-08
R.S. 44:1

When employees conduct official business through electronic communications, it becomes part
Mayor Margo Racca
of the public record which an
Town of Iowa
individual may view if the public
entity makes this available, but
P.O. Box 1707
may determine access through
Iowa, LA. 70647
other means is more convenient.

Dear Mayor Racca:

This office is in receipt of your request for an opinion of the Attorney General in regard to use of the municipality’s computer network for public records by an individual who demands he be allowed to view the information directly.

In Title 44, Public Records and Recorders, R.S. 44:1, provides as follows:

A (1) As used in this Chapter, the phrase =public body" means any branch, department, office, agency, board, commission, district, governing authority, political subdivision, or any committee, subcommittee, advisory board, or task force thereof, or any other instrumentality of state, parish, or municipal government, including a public or quasi-public nonprofit corporation designated as an entity to perform a governmental or proprietary function.

(2)(a) All books, records, writings, accounts, letters and letter books, maps, drawing, photographs, cards, tapes, recordings, memoranda, and papers, and all co0ies, duplicates, photographs, including microfilm, or other reproductions thereof, or any other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, including information contained in electronic data processing equi0ment, having been used, being in use, or prepared, possessed, or retrained for use in the conduct, transaction, or .oerformance of any business, transaction, work, duty, or function which was conducted, transacted, or performed by or under the authority of the constitution or laws of this state, or by or under the authority of any ordinance, re_aulation. mandate, or order of any 0ublic body or concerning the receipt or payment of any money received or paid by or under the authority of the constitution or the laws of this state, are =public records", e~cept as other provided in this Chapter or the Constitution of Louisiana. (Emphasis added.)

Mayor Margo Racca
OPINION 03-08
Page 2

This office observed in Atty. Gen. Op. 02-271 with regard to information located on the database of the SAC (Substance Abuse Counselors) Board under contract with LASACT (La. Assn. of Substance Abuse Counselors), a private entity, that the Board’s computer database contained information =beyond that of the Board’s internet website, specifically that which may be considered confidential under the exceptions to the Public Records laws listed in La. R.S. 44:4.1." It was found because of the nature of this information, there was no requirement that the Board provide LASACT =blanket access to their private database." It was observed if the Board should choose to do so, the Board would have to protect that information that is considered excepted from the Public Records Law, and would be obliged to reorganize the database to secure information that would be exempt from access as a public record. It was further stated the second option would be to deny access to the Board’s private database, and for information that is considered public records, access must be granted. This office concluded:

It is therefore the opinion of this office that the SAC Board may, but is not required to provide LASCAT with access to it’s private computer database.
If the SAC Board should allow access, it has the duty to safeguard all public records and secure all information that fits within the exceptions of La. R.S.
44:4.1, for this information should not be accessible to LASACT.

Similarly, in Atty. Gen. Op. 01-155 this office was faced with the question whether there should be access to computers of members of the State Board of Private Investigator Examiners. These computers were never in Board offices and were maintained by the individual members. This office observed as follows:

In conclusion, allowing warrantless monitoring of electronic communications of individual Board members would violate Article 1, Section 5 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, as well as a consistent line of Louisiana jurisprudence dating back as far as 1911. All such communications by individual Board members or employees are private and privileged. If Board members or employees are actually conducting official business through electronic communications, these private communications then become part of the public record and are subject to production under the Public Records Act.

Accordingly, we would conclude as stated above if employees are actually conducting official business through electronic communications, then they become part of the public record and are subject to production. Accordingly, an individual may view =public records" from the municipality’s computer network if the public entity makes this available, but may determine access through other means is more convenient.

Mayor Margo Racca
OPINION 03-08
Page 3

In either situation there is an obligation on the part of the municipality to safeguard information within the exceptions of the public records law. While public record statutes must be liberally construed, public inspection does not extend to all personnel and medical files which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. General information such as education, salary, tenure, rank or title would be subject to disclosure, but information such as telephone numbers of employees, home addresses or any information that the employee reasonably expects to be kept confidential or is requested to be confidential is restricted from public access.

We hope this sufficiently answers your inquiry, but if we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
A’I-FORNEY GENERAL

BARBARA B. RUTLEDGE u
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

RPI/bbr