Oregon Advisory Opinions May 03, 1956: OAG 56-24 (May 3, 1956)
Collection: Oregon Attorney General Opinions
Docket: OAG 56-24
Date: May 3, 1956
Advisory Opinion Text
OAG 56-24.
State Representative
In your letter of April 2, 1956, you stated that "the head of the Elections Division of the Secretary of State has refused to disclose certain public writings to a citizen of this State who requested an opportunity to examine the same pursuant to ORS 192.010 and ORS 192.030." The specific documents referred to were copies of a receipt issued to Walter Norblad to cover the fee for filing his candidacy for Republican nomination for Governor; a credit memorandum involving this transaction; and a second receipt for $100 for filing his candidacy for nomination for Representative in Congress.
ORS 192.030 provides as follows:
"All officers having custody of any state * * * records shall furnish proper and reasonable opportunities for inspection and examination of records and files in their respective offices, and reasonable facilities for making memoranda or abstracts therefrom, during the usual business hours, to all persons having occasion to make examination of them for any lawful purpose. The custodian of the records and files may make reasonable rules and regulations necessary for the protection of the records and files and to prevent the interference with the regular discharge of the duties of such officer." (Emphasis supplied)
The case of Bend Publishing Co. v. Haner, (1926) 118 Or. 105, involved construction and application of what is now ORS 192.030 and the right of said news
paper to inspect and make copies of abstracts of court records.
The court held that the common law has been modified by statute in many instances, that what is now ORS 192.030 constituted such a modification, and, further, that what is now ORS 7.130 and 192.030 must be read together, and that the latter must be given effect, being a later enactment (chapter 98, Oregon Laws 1909), to the extent of any repugnancy between the two sections.
We should next consider ORS 192.010, which provides that
"Every citizen of this state has a right to inspect any public writing of this state, except as otherwise expressly provided by statute."
" Public writings are the written acts, or records of the acts, of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals and public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of this state, * * *" (Emphasis supplied) ORS 43.010.
" Public writings are divided into:
"(1) Laws.
"(2) Judicial records.
"(3) Other official documents.
"(4) Public records, kept in this state, of private writings." (Emphasis supplied) ORS 43.020.
ORS 192.010, providing for inspection of any public writing of this state by every citizen hereof, was adopted in 1862, and is, in our opinion, a general law providing for such inspections. ORS 192.030 is a later general law on the same subject (Bend Publishing Co. v. Haner, supra), granting the right of inspection of all state records, for any lawful purpose. It is our opinion that "any state record" described in ORS 192.030 necessarily includes all public writings defined and referred to in ORS 43.010 and 192.010; but that "any" (all) "state records" is broader in meaning and includes many state records which are not within the definition of public writings.
Declarations of candidacy filed by persons seeking nomination to public office become public records available for inspection, pursuant to ORS 249.830; in our view, such papers are public writings within the meaning of ORS 43.020 (4). However, the receipts and credit memoranda to which you refer are not expressly declared to be public writings or records and are not expressly required to be maintained by the Secretary of State. The question remains whether or not such documents are nevertheless "state records".
In the case of State v. Brantley, (1954) 201 Or. 637, 646, the court said:
"'A "public record", strictly speaking, is one made by a public officer in pursuance of a duty, the immediate purpose of which is to disseminate information to the public, or to serve as a memorial of official transactions for public reference.' State v. Grace, 43 Wyo 454, 5 P2d 301, 303; and to the same effect see also Robison v. Fishback, 175 Ind 132, 93 NE 666 * * *."
In the Robison v. Fishback case, supra (last cited), the court, in speaking of the duties of the city treasurer, held, at page 137:
"* * * 'Whenever a written record of the transactions of a public officer in his office, is a convenient and appropriate mode of discharging the duties of his office, it is not only his right but his duty to keep that memorial, whether expressly required so to do or not; and when kept it becomes a public document---a public record belonging to the office and not to the officer; it is the property of the state and not of the citizen, and is in no sense a private memorandum.'" (Emphasis supplied) See also Clement v. Graham, 78 Vt. 290, 63 A. 146.
Based upon the authorities examined and cited, and especially in view of the provision in ORS 192.030 that "any state record" is subject to inspection, we conclude that the documents in the office of the Secretary of State and referred to by you are "state records" and may be inspected by any person having occasion to do so for a lawful purpose.