The growth of opinions may also relate to a greater willingness on the part of governmental bodies to seek an AG opinion rather than simply withhold materials from citizens. Although the PIA requires government officials to seek an AG opinion on information they wish to withhold, it allows governmental bodies to avoid this process if "there has been a previous determination that the requested material falls within one of the exceptions to disclosure." ⁴⁴

Officials Protect Regulated Industries by Holding Back Public Information   Jerry Jordan, a reporter for The Examiner of Beaumont, filed a complaint with the AG after the Department of Banking stalled his request. Jordan faxed a request for a report related to a cemetery to the banking department on June 12, 1998. When he got no reply, he followed up with a phone call 10 days later and was told by a department employee that his request had not been received. He faxed it again, this time confirming by phone that it arrived. Having heard nothing by July 16 (well beyond the statutory deadline), Jordan called the department, got no assistance and then faxed a complaint to the AG. "They didn't want to release it because they thought it would have a negative impact on the cemetery," Jordan said in an interview with CU. The AG followed up with a July 29 letter urging the department to release the information immediately. According to Jordan, the banking department released the requested information shortly after receiving the AG's letter, but nearly eight weeks after he filed his public information request.

A "previous determination" is a prior ruling in which the AG has dealt with the precise information at issue in the pending request. If the previous AG decision "did not involve the same actual information, then in most cases the governmental body should not treat that decision as a previous determination." ⁴⁵ At one time, governmental bodies may have construed this provision more broadly and withheld information from citizens without seeking an AG opinion. In that case, the number of open records issues forwarded to the AG by governmental bodies would have remained artificially low.

Coaxum suggests that open government conferences sponsored by the AG have reinforced the notion that governmental bodies should not decide on their own what to withhold from the public, but should use the review process outlined in the PIA. The AG has sponsored 12 such conferences since 1992, and Open Records Division staff have participated in more than 50 open government training seminars for public officials since 1995. ⁴⁶ According to Coaxum, open government conferences are especially valuable for "those more remote areas that may not even realize that they're supposed to ask us for a ruling. So I think that education has been a primary factor in the increase in the number of requests." ⁴⁷

Furthermore, the establishment of a toll-free hotline in February 1993 for open records queries and complaints has facilitated citizen communication with the AG and given the public an additional tool to make governmental bodies comply with the Act (see story, page 8). Hotline calls jumped more than 500 percent from FY93 (837 calls) through FY98 (5,713 calls). ⁴⁸

Officials Hold Back Information for Controlled Presentation to Public   Sometimes government officials are more interested in controlling public information than disseminating it. On May 27, 1998, a reporter for the Dallas Morning News requested the results of a drug survey conducted by the Carrollton Independent School District. In a June 10 reply, a district spokeswoman agreed "that the information is public information under the Open Records Act," but said the district did not want to release it until a June 18 public meeting, to which the reporter was invited. The reporter filed a complaint with the AG the following day, arguing the district was "stalling on releasing the information." On June 12, the AG informed the district it could not arbitrarily withhold the survey results, citing Open Records Decision 225 (issued in 1979). During a telephone conversation with an AG investigator, district officials agreed to release the information to the reporter on June 16, two days before the scheduled meeting but nearly three weeks after he requested it.

Next