When a radio station and newspaper ask a local school board for copies of the travel-expense records of the former superintendent, are those records public records that must be disclosed, or are they protected personnel-file documents because the records may relate to the superintendent's recent departure?
Plain-English summary
A radio station and a newspaper asked the Albemarle County Board of Education for the travel-expense records of the former superintendent of the school system. The Board's attorney asked the AG whether the records were public records subject to disclosure under G.S. 132-6, or whether they were part of the protected personnel file under G.S. 115C-319.
The 1993 AG said disclose.
The personnel-file exemption is broad on paper. G.S. 115C-319 defines "personnel file" to mean "any information gathered by the local board of education... which information relates to the individual's application, selection, non-selection, promotion, demotion, transfer, leave, salary, suspension, performance evaluation, disciplinary action or termination of employment wherever located in whatever form." A "plausible argument" could be made that the superintendent's travel records fall within that definition because they "may relate to" the termination of his employment. Perhaps the Board reviewed the travel records during the lead-up to his departure. Perhaps the records are now part of the Board's internal file about the termination.
But the exemption-construction canon flips the result. The Public Records Law (Chapter 132) is to be construed broadly in favor of public access. Exemptions are construed narrowly, limited to their plain words. News and Observer Publishing Co. v. Poole, 330 N.C. 465 (1992), is the cited authority.
Travel-expense records, in their nature, relate to the expenditure of public funds. The school system's money went on a trip, and the records show where, when, and how. That is core public-records territory: the public has an interest in knowing how its money is being spent by its officials.
The relationship to the superintendent's employment status is secondary. Travel records exist as travel records regardless of whether the superintendent is leaving, staying, or being promoted. They are not generated by the employment-status process; they are generated by the trips. The fact that the Board may now be using them in connection with a termination does not transform their character into "personnel" records that the statute meant to shield.
The narrow rule for genuine personnel records. The AG drew the line carefully. Written reports made to or by the Board regarding the termination of the superintendent's employment "would plainly fall within the definition of 'personnel file'" and would not be subject to disclosure, even if the reports drew on or referenced travel-expense documents. The protected category is the termination report itself, not the underlying expense records.
The bottom line. Travel-expense records are public. Termination reports that use the travel-expense records as evidence are still personnel-file material and remain confidential. Both rules can coexist because they protect different categories of documents.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1993. 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. The school personnel-file exemption has been renumbered (formerly G.S. 115C-319 through 321, current provisions appear elsewhere in Chapter 115C) and may have been amended in scope. The Public Records Law has continued to be developed by court decisions. Anyone facing a current school personnel-file or public-records request should consult current Chapter 115C and current Chapter 132 along with current Supreme Court precedent.
Historical context: what the AG concluded
The opinion captures a common 1990s tension: school boards facing aggressive public-records requests after a superintendent's departure, with the local press and a watchful taxpayer base wanting to know what had happened and what it cost.
The Board's attorney took the cautious route by asking the AG. The cautious answer was to disclose, on the strength of the broad-access canon. The AG could have written a longer opinion working through factual cases on how directly a document "relates to" termination, but the textual analysis suffices. The exemption's plain words cover personnel actions and documentation; travel records are expenditure records that happen to be reviewable in the termination context. Different categories.
The reasoning also reflects sound policy. Travel-expense documents are exactly the kind of record the public has the strongest interest in seeing. The expenditure of public dollars is the heart of accountability. A rule that lets school boards seal travel-expense records the moment a superintendent's tenure becomes controversial would close off accountability at the exact moment it is most needed.
The narrow protection for termination reports is also good policy. The Board needs to be able to conduct an internal review of a superintendent's performance and the reasons for departure without those internal deliberations becoming part of the next news cycle. Reports made for that internal evaluation purpose stay confidential. The receipts and expense vouchers do not.
For school district records custodians in 1993 the practical takeaway was a clear two-tier approach: release expense documents; protect Board termination reports even when those reports cite or attach the underlying expense documents.
Common questions
What does the Public Records Law cover?
G.S. 132-6 makes public records of state and local government agencies open to inspection and copying by any person. Records are public unless a specific statutory exemption removes them from the public-records framework.
What does the school personnel-file exemption cover?
G.S. 115C-319 (and related provisions) protect from disclosure information gathered by a local school board relating to an individual employee's application, selection, promotion, demotion, transfer, leave, salary, suspension, performance evaluation, disciplinary action, or termination of employment.
Why are travel-expense records public?
They are expenditure records. The Public Records Law starts with a strong presumption of public access. Travel records relate primarily to how public money was spent, not to a personnel action. The connection to employment status is secondary.
Do internal Board reports about a termination get released too?
No. The AG was clear that "written reports made to or by the Board of Education regarding the termination of the superintendent's employment" fall within the personnel-file exemption and are not subject to disclosure, even if they reference or attach the travel-expense documents.
Does the broad-construction rule trump every exemption argument?
Not every one. News and Observer v. Poole set out a narrow-construction-of-exemptions rule, but exemptions still apply within their plain words. The travel-records analysis works because the plain words of the exemption focus on personnel-action documentation, not on expenditure records that happen to involve an employee.
Could a school district redact parts of travel records before release?
The opinion does not address redaction. Records custodians typically must consider whether any portions fit a specific exemption (such as medical information protected by other statutes) before release.
Background and statutory framework
The Public Records Law. G.S. 132-6 (right of inspection and copying of public records).
The school personnel-file exemption. G.S. 115C-319 (definition of "personnel file" — broad enumeration of categories tied to personnel actions). G.S. 115C-319-321 (related provisions).
The construction canon. News and Observer Publishing Co. v. Poole, 330 N.C. 465, 412 S.E.2d 71 (1992) (Public Records Law construed broadly in favor of access; exemptions limited to plain words).
Citations
- G.S. 132-6
- G.S. 115C-319, G.S. 115C-319-321
- G.S. 115C-119
- News and Observer Publishing Co. v. Poole, 330 N.C. 465, 412 S.E.2d 71 (1992)
Source
Original opinion text
April 5, 1993
Mr. John M. Bahner, Jr.
Bahner & Medlin
PO Drawer 1210
Albemarle, NC 28002-1210
RE: Advisory Opinion; G.S. 132-6; G.S. 115C-319; Public Records; Employee Travel Expense Records
Dear Mr. Bahner:
The Albemarle County Board of Education has received a request from a radio station and newspaper for copies of the travel expense records of the former superintendent of the school system. By letter dated April 2, 1992, you asked for our opinion whether the documents requested are public records that must be disclosed pursuant to G.S. 132-6 or whether they are part of the personnel file of the former superintendent protected from disclosure by G.S. 115C-319-321.
We have examined the copy of the public records request made by the radio station and newspaper, and in our opinion, the documents are public records with should be disclosed.
G.S. 115C-319 provides that the personnel file of an employee or former employee of a local school board is not a public record. "Personnel file" is defined to mean: "any information gathered by the local board of education... which information relates to the individuals's application, selection, non-selection, promotion, demotion, transfer, leave, salary, suspension, performance evaluation, disciplinary action or termination of employment wherever located in whatever form." Id. This is a broad exemption and a plausible argument can be made that it covers the superintendent's travel record in this instance because they may relate to the termination of his employment. In our opinion, however, this plausible argument must give way to the rule that the Public Records Law is to be construed broadly in favor of public access and the corollary rule that an exemption to the Public Records Law will be limited to its plain words. News and Observer Publishing Co. v. Poole, 330 N.C. 465, 412 S.E.2d 71 (1992). Travel records relate to the expenditure of public funds; any relationship to the superintendents employment is secondary or incidental. Thus, in our opinion, G.S. 115C-119 does not apply in this instance, and superintendents travel records should be treated as public records.
We add that any written reports made to or by the Board of Education regarding the termination of the superintendent's employment would plainly fall within the definition of "personnel file" in G.S. 115C-319, and thus not be subject to disclosure even though the reports might be based on or refer to travel expense documents.
Edwin M. Speas, Jr.
Senior Deputy Attorney General