07-24-03 Fill Dirt Review Committee minutes

Browse Search

e e Major General Willie L. Scott - 'ale 2 will "unduly interfere with law enfoTcellent and crime prevention," and we conclude there faTe that the lnfol'1lUltlon at issue here 1s not excepted from disclosure undeT section 3(a)(8). Open Records Decision No. 252 (1980). We note, howevet', that you have also raised the informer's privilele 8S incorporated into section 3(a)(I) of the Open Records Act. We will discuss this privilege subsequently in this decbion. A large portion of the 1nfonultion marked in enclosure Sc is, however, excepted under section 3(a)(11) of the Act as an "interagency memorandum." That exception 18 applicable to the information submitted to the extent that it consists of "advice, opinion and Tecommendat10ns." Open Records Decision Nos. 273 (1981); 239 (1980). Accordingly, we have marked those parts of the documents in enclosuTe 5c which may be withheld under section 3(a)(11). The second series of docuaents consists of three m&Tked portions of enclosuTe 5c and a report of an investigation, dated February 27, 1978, into lrrelularities related to reports submitted by an individual In the Texas Rational Guard. Portions of the report contain the adVice, opinion and recommendations of tbe investilator, and, as noted above, are excepted from disclosure under section 3(a)(I1). Part of the report. as well as the marked portions of enclosure 5c, is also excepted under section 3(a)(l) of the Act, as information deemed confidential by the informer's privilege. In Open Records Decision No. 172 (1977), this office held that a report of an investigation into tbe conduct of a formeI' ofUcer of the Texas National Guard \las except.ed from disclosure undeT section 3(a) (1), "as tending to reveal the identity of infot1lumts." The decision noted that. while the privilege normally applies only to the identity of an informant. and not to the ~ontents of bis communication. the eontent itself is privileged vhen it would tend to reveal the identity of the informant. As in Open Records Decision No. 172. it appears that disclosure of the informeTs' statementa would here tend to reveal their identity. Thus. in accordance \litb the reasoning of that decision, we believe that the entiTe nport dated February 27, 1978. together with the three relevant portions of enclosuTe 5c. may be withheld from disclosuTe under section 3(a)(II). as advice, opinion and recommendations, or undeT section 3(a)(1). as information deemed confidential by the 1nformeT's privilege. MAR KWH I T E Attorney General of Texas