Chambers v. Birmingham News Co.

• Decision Date: 13 October 1989
• Parties: 16 Media L. Rep. 2490 Steve CHAMBERS, et al. v. The BIRMINGHAM NEWS COMPANY. 88-1087.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 854

552 So.2d 854

16 Media L. Rep. 2490

Steve CHAMBERS, et al. v. The BIRMINGHAM NEWS COMPANY.

88-1087.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Oct. 13, 1989.

Raymond P. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Birmingham, and Frank C. Ellis, Jr. of Wallis, Ellis, Head & Fowler, Columbiana, for appellants.

Gilbert E. Johnston, Jr., Hollinger F. Barnard and Alice H. Prater of Johnston, Barton, Proctor, Swedlaw & Naff, Birmingham, for appellee.

Dennis R. Bailey of Rushton, Stakely, Johnston and Garrett, Montgomery, for amicus curiae Alabama Press Ass'n.

JONES, Justice.

This appeal is from a judgment granting a permanent injunction ordering the members of the Shelby County Commission and the director of the Shelby County Personnel Department (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Commission") to make certain resumes and employment applications available to the Birmingham News Company ("the News"). We affirm.

The Commission, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 11-3-11(19), created the position of "coordinator of water and sewer services" ("coordinator"). The position was created for the purpose of marketing the water and sewer services offered by Shelby County.

Although not required by statute or local law to advertise or to follow personnel hiring procedures, the Commission placed advertisements in area newspapers soliciting applications for the newly created position. The Commission received applications from 31 persons, five of whom were interviewed by the Commission.

After the Commission appointed Greg Rushton, a former Shelby County Commissioner, as coordinator, questions were raised regarding the selection process used to fill the position. The News requested access to the applications, resumes, and other related materials that the Commission had received in connection with its selection of the new coordinator.

Upon the Commission's denial of the request, the News filed suit, contending that the denial of access to the application materials violated Alabama's "Open Records Act," Ala.Code 1975, § 36-12-40 (Supp.1988), and asked the circuit court to permanently enjoin the Commission from denying the News access to the requested materials. The Commission argued, among other things, that its personnel policy, adopted by resolution, provided that the information in the application materials sought by the News was confidential and accessible only to the Commission or to the individual applicant. Furthermore, the Commission contended that the application materials fall within three exceptions to the requirement of public disclosure as set out in Stone v. Consolidated Publishing Co., 404 So.2d 678 (Ala.1981): 1) recorded information received by a public officer in confidence; 2) sensitive personnel records; and 3) records the disclosure of which would be detrimental to the public's best interest.

The trial court, in granting a permanent injunction in favor of the News, entered the following judgment:

"The court has carefully considered the standards set forth in Stone v. Consolidated Pub. Co., 404 So.2d 678 (Ala.1981), with regard to the disclosure of public writings.

"The court has examined [in camera] each and every resume and application furnished, together with the Stone [opinion and] Code 1975, § 36-12-40. Most contain cover letters, none of which request that their resume or application be kept confidential, nor do any applications request that the fact they even applied or submitted a resume be kept confidential from their employers.

"The position announcement makes no mention of confidentiality, and though Shelby County's Personnel Director stated that all applications were deemed confidential through standard policy, he could not recall making a promise of confidentiality to any applicant.

"The documents submitted to the court titled as 'resume' and 'application for employment' in connection with the position of Coordinator, Water and Sewer Services, are reasonably necessary to record the business activities required to be done or carried on by a public officer so as to make the documents 'public writings' within the meaning and definition of § 36-12-40. None are confidential, nor do any contain sensitive material which would require them to be an exception to the established disclosure laws.

"The court finds that the disclosure of these applications and resumes, as public records or writings, will in no way be detrimental to the best interest of the public. The court has balanced the interests of the citizens of this state in knowing what their public officials are doing, and whom they are hiring and rejecting, against the interest of the general public in having the business of government carried out efficiently and without undue influence.

"The court concludes that, when the public's dollars fund county government, the public has a right to know not only the information these public officials desire to make public, but also all other information which is neither sensitive nor confidential. Without this right, the public is forced into receiving just that information that public officials allow to be discussed at open public meetings--a practice that is contrary to the fundamental and essential principles of democracy and of established public policy. Public information may not be sifted through by public officials and trickled down to the citizens of this state at the whim of those officials. If the public finds information regarding the workings and mechanics of the hiring of county government...