University System v. BILTIMORE SUN
Decision Date | 15 April 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 138,138 |
Citation | 381 Md. 79,847 A.2d 427 |
Parties | UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF MARYLAND, et al. v. The BALTIMORE SUN COMPANY, et al. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Mark J. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellants. Mary R. Craig (Mary R. Craig, P.A., on brief), Towson, for appellees.
Argued before BELL, C.J., ELDRIDGE 1, RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL and BATTAGLIA, JJ.
This case concerns a request to the University of Maryland, College Park ("UMCP") for public records, made by The Baltimore Sun and Jon Morgan, one of its sports reporters (collectively, the "appellees") pursuant to the Maryland Public Information Act (hereafter "the MPIA"). The MPIA is codified at Maryland Code (1984, 1999 Repl.Vol., 2001 Cum.Supp.) §§ 10-611 et seq. of the State Government Article.2
I.
This case had its genesis when the appellees made a written MPIA request to the Athletic Department of UMCP seeking In response, University Counsel disclosed that Coach Friedgen's annual salary was $183,920,3 and denied the remainder of the request, citing § 10-616(i)4 and § 10-617(f),5 which prohibit the disclosure of personnel and certain financial information.
Dissatisfied with the UMCP's response, the appellees retained counsel, who sought reconsideration of UMCP's decision to disclose only those documents related to Coach Friedgen's salary and to refuse disclosure of documents "describing other employment related compensation due" him. They argued that UMCP's reliance on § 10-616(i) and § 10-617(f) was flawed because UMCP improperly and narrowly interpreted the term, "salary," and, at the same time, improperly construed the term, "personnel," broadly, both inconsistently with the "bias in favor of disclosure recognized by the courts."6
The UMCP was not persuaded and maintained its position. Responding to the appellees' request for reconsideration, it wrote:
Nonetheless, perhaps in an attempt to avoid the threatened lawsuit, Coach Friedgen voluntarily agreed to provide additional information about his compensation. Accordingly, the UMCP disclosed the following additional information:
In the meantime and prior to receipt of the additional information voluntarily disclosed by Coach Friedgen, the appellees made another MPIA request of the UMCP Athletic Department, this one seeking information with respect to the compensation and income of UMCP's head basketball coach, Gary Williams.7 The University responded to that request as follows:
Thus, UMCP reaffirmed its previously communicated interpretation of the MPIA and, accordingly, refused to disclose any information relating to Coach Williams' non-University related income. Nor did it disclose a copy of Coach William's University contract.
The appellees filed suit in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, naming as defendants the University System of Maryland, Deborah A Yow, Ph.D., the athletic director at UMCP, and David Haglund, the assistant director of Intercollegiate Athletics at UMCP (collectively, the "appellants" or the "University"). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, at the center of which was the question whether the University was required to disclose, not only each coach's total salary from the University, but, the underlying contracts and agreements relating to each coach's income. The appellants argued that the plain language of the applicable sections of the MPIA statute requires state agencies to deny disclosure of a state employee's personnel and financial records, with a narrow exception for salary derived from State funds. The appellees, on the other hand, maintained that the records sought were subject to the mandatory disclosure requirements of the MPIA and that the appellant's interpretation "accords broad secrecy to the terms of a state employee's compensation contrary to the MPIA's mandate that the salary of public employees should be a matter of public record."
The trial court found in favor of the appellees. It reasoned: the legislature has directed that the MPIA "shall be construed in favor of permitting inspection" of public records; the term "salary" unambiguously is included in the definition of "public record" in § 10-611(g)(2); the financial records exclusion contained in § 10-617(f) does not apply to the salary of a public employee; and, salary related documents are not personnel records within the meaning of the statute. Consequently, the trial court granted the appellees' motion for summary judgment and denied the appellants' cross-motion. Accordingly, the court ordered that the records requested by the appellees be produced.8 The court instructed that, to the extent that salary information and personnel records coexist in the same document, the personnel information should be redacted before the records are delivered to the appellees.
The appellants moved to alter or amend the judgment, in an attempt to have any references to payments to the coaches from third parties deleted from the court's order. They argued, in that regard, that such payments did not constitute "salary" of a public employee and pointed out that the appellees requested information only about payments to the coaches "by the State University from public funds" and indicated that the records it sought did "not reveal anything about the coaches' personal finances other than how much taxpayer money they are paid from their public employment." The trial court denied that motion, whereupon the appellants timely noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. Prior to any proceedings on the merits in the intermediate appellate court,9 this Court, on its own initiative, issued a writ of certiorari. University System of Maryland v. The Baltimore Sun Co., 374 Md. 81, 821 A.2d 369, (2003).
III.
We recently considered the applicability of the MPIA in Hammen v. Baltimore County Police Department, 373 Md. 440, 455-456, 818 A.2d 1125, 1134-36 (2003). In that case, we commented that the MPIA requires that a "custodian shall permit a person ... to inspect any public record at any reasonable time" except as otherwise provided by law. Id., citing § 10-613.10 We explained that the "provisions of the ... Act reflect the legislative intent that the citizens of the State of Maryland be accorded wide-ranging access to public information concerning the operation of their government." Id., quoting Kirwan v. The Diamondback, 352 Md. 74, 81, 721 A.2d 196, 199 (1998) (emphasis in original). Moreover, we made clear that the MPIA "is to be construed in favor of disclosure." Id., citing § 10-612(b).11 See also, Fioretti v. Maryland State Board of Dental Examiners, 351 Md. 66, 73, 716 A.2d 258, 262 (1998) (), quoting A.S. Abell...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dashiell v. Md. State Police Dep't
...the reasonable expectation of privacy that a person in interest has” in his or her personnel records. Univ. Sys. of Md. v. Balt. Sun Co., 381 Md. 79, 99–100, 847 A.2d 427 (2004). The Court of Appeals has explained that, although the listed examples in the statute (employment application, pe......
-
Immanuel v. Comptroller of Md., 87, Sept. Term, 2015.
...and information “that the statute mandatorily instructs a custodian to deny, or permit, inspection.” Univ. Sys. of Maryland v. Baltimore Sun Co., 381 Md. 79, 88, 847 A.2d 427, 432 (2004). Importantly, the express exemptions set out in the statute, “are intended to address the reasonable exp......
-
Amster v. Baker
...the case for the trial court to conduct further factual inquiry. Id. at 781, 481 A.2d 221 ; see also Univ. Sys. of Md. v. Balt. Sun Co. , 381 Md. 79, 106–07, 847 A.2d 427 (2004) (remanding for trial court to conduct in camera review of documents requested under the MPIA).VaughnThe D.C. Circ......
-
Md. Dep't of State Police v. Dashiell
...appointees, see Washington Post, 360 Md. at 548, 759 A.2d at 264 ; and employment contracts, see Univ. Sys. of Md. v. Balt. Sun Co., 381 Md. 79, 102, 847 A.2d 427, 441 (2004).In Montgomery Cnty. Md. v. Shropshire, 420 Md. 362, 381, 23 A.3d 205, 216 (2011), this Court held that certain “inte......