Were a Louisiana advocacy nonprofit’s staff job descriptions public records?

Plain-English summary

The Advocacy Center, a nonprofit designated as Louisiana’s protection and advocacy system, asked whether the Public Records Law covered it and an older set of staff job descriptions. In August 2015, the Attorney General concluded that the Center was a quasi-public body for public-records purposes because it performed a governmental function and received public funds. That coverage extended only to records connected with the receipt or expenditure of those funds.

The Center had withheld job descriptions in effect six years earlier because it considered them irrelevant to the requester’s objective. The AG gave a different legal test: the descriptions were private unless connected to the use of public funds. It did not decide from the described facts whether those particular job descriptions had that connection.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2015. 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.

Common questions

Was every Advocacy Center record open to inspection?

No. The AG limited Public Records Law coverage to records related to receiving or spending public funds.

Were the requested staff job descriptions automatically public?

No. The AG said they were private unless they had a connection to the receipt or expenditure of public funds. The opinion did not establish that connection for the particular descriptions.

Could the Center deny access just because it thought the requester did not need the records?

The opinion did not make the requester’s objective the governing test. It asked whether the job descriptions related to public funds.

Background and statutory framework

La. Const. art. XII, § 3 protected access to public documents, subject to exceptions established by law. The opinion applied La. R.S. 44:1’s public-body definition to the Center’s governmental function and public funding, then used the public-funds connection to describe the reach of inspection. It relied on the Louisiana Nicholls decisions for that limit.

Citations

• La. Const. art. XII, § 3 (access to public documents).
• La. R.S. 44:1 (public-body definition).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/15-0086

Original opinion text

j5itate of 1UOutStalla
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. BOX 94005
BATON ROUGE

JAMES D. "BUDDY" CALDWELL
70B04-9005
ATIORNEY GENERAL

August 11, 2015
OPINION 15-0086

90-C PublicRecords
Lois V. Simpson
La. Cons! art. XII, § 3 La, R.S. 44:1 et seq.
Advocacy Center
8325 Oak Street
The Advocacy Center is a non-profit entity performing a
governmental function and receiving public funds. As such, it is
New Orleans, LA 70118
considered a quasi-public body subject to the Public Records
Law (La. R.S. 44:1 at seq.), but only to the extentthat its records and/ordocuments are connected to the receipt or expenditure of
Dear Ms. Simpson: public funds

On behalf of the Advocacy Center ("Center"), you have requested an Attorney General's opinion as to whether the Center is subject to the Louisiana's Public Records Law. If the answer is affirmative, you question whether records containing job descriptions of the Center staff are subject to production under the Louisiana Public Records Act.

You indicate the Center received a request related to job descriptions that were in effect six years ago; however, since the Center determined that such records were not relevant to the requestor's objective, they were not produced.

The right of access to public information is guaranteed by La. Const. art. XII, § 3, which provides, "[n]o person shall be denied the right to observe the deliberations of public bodies and examine public documents, except in cases established by law." The Public Records Act, La. R.S. 44:1 et seq., was enacted by the Louisiana Legislature to protect and define the constitutional right of access to public documents.'

Pursuant to La. R.S. 44:1 (A)(1), the Public Records Law applies to all public bodies, including "a public or quasi-public nonprofit corporation designated as an entity to perform a governmental or proprietary function." The Supreme Court of Louisiana in Guste v. Nicholls College Foundation, 564 So. 2d 682 (La. 1990), and the First Circuit, on remand, at 592 So. 2d 419 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1991) writ denied, 593 So. 2d 651 (La.
1992), confirmed that intrinsically private, non-profit corporations, to the extent they take on the performance of a governmental function and use public funds and resources, are subject to the Public Records Act. The inspection of public records, however, is limited to those records related to the use of public funds." The Nicholls court stated:

1
La. Ally. Gen. Op. No. 14-0010. z Carter v. Fench, 322 So. 2d 305, 307 (La. Ct. App. 1975) writ denied, 325 So. 2d 277 (La. 1976).

Page 2

OPINION 15-0086
Ms. Lois V. Simpson
Page 2

If a private corporation accepts public money from a public body in the discharge of the latter's constitutional or legal duties, it must disclose records concerning those transactions, including the receipt and expenditure of those funds. If those corporations wish to avoid divulging nonpublic receipts and expenditures, they need only maintain separate and distinct books, accounts and records." (Emphasis added).

Your request states that the Center is a non-profit, quasi-public entity organized in 1977 and designated by the then Governor as the protection and advocacy system for Louisiana. According to its own website, the Center receives public funds from the federal, state and local government to perform a governmental function by providing numerous services to the public in general.4 As such, the Center is considered a quasi­ public body under La. R.S. 44:1 (A)(1) and it subject to the Public Records Law. 5

Whether the Center's staff job descriptions are subject to public inspection depends on whether those records are related to the use of public funds received from a public entity. Thus, consistent with the Nichol/s decision, it is the opinion of this office that the Center's staff job descriptions are considered private records not subject to public inspection unless they are connected with the receipt or expenditure of public funds.

We trust this adequately responds to your request. However, if our office can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours very truly,

JAMES D. "BUDDY" CALDWELL
AnO~Y GEN RAL

By:
Ethe cera am
Assistant Attorney General

JDC: ESG

3 Nicholls, supra, at p. 689.
, hllp:/Iwww.advocacyla.org/index.php/funding-sourcesgrants.htm!. (Last visited 7/30/15). 5 See La. Ally. Gen. Op. Nos. 06-0171, 02-36, 79-1003A, and 79-858.