*1 63 715, Ga. 716
2. We grant appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw grounds that this appeal is frivolous. The requirements for such action as set California, forth Anders v. S. 738 SC (1966), 18 LE2d met have been here. Counsel suggests the only issue for possible review is that raised by objection to the introduction of evidence of the Florida crime. After carefully reviewing applicable record, transcript trial entire charge court, we conclude there no error. was State, Moore v.
Bacon v. All the concur. affirmed.
Submitted December Garner, W.
James for appellant. W. Bryant Huff, District Attorney, Arthur K. Attorney General, for appellee. OBSERVER, et
35239. ATHENS INC. al. al. ANDERSON et Presiding Justice. Undercofler, newspaper request by This case involves a Athens Act, Ann. Ch. for disclosure under Sciences College the Dean of the of Arts and research and Georgia. Four consultants funds to were with state university outside the at programs mathematical sciences Mathematics, Department of including the Department Mathematics Applied Center court held that Computer Science. Statistics and then, record; upon applying was a cases, e.g., previous in our balancing test announced 624) (1976), it Rutledge, the need for candid evaluations concluded public’s right to see personnel outweighed approved. was an edited version and the release of part newspaper appeals. and reverse We affirm The part. departments report on the mathematical 1. The committee, dean solicited *2 university, clearly cat- falls papers, prepared egory "documents, and and records a course of maintained office,” "public and, is, therefore, a under the Act. record” supra, p. § 40-2701. 765. Code Ann. v. Houston opinions, argues report, which The is that contains completed it a "record” is not "memorial not a because by acts, events, view or a official. This occurrences” is narrow. too report represents analysis and
The the final study by consultants to recommendations after it have That the officers who commissioned suggestions not, not, is on its not determinative. act "public scope To the state insists restrict records” as unduly suppress access to information public importance during a time when decisions of are agree being can be addressed. with considered and We report, officers Georgia evaluating at departments the mathematical institution, at this state is a record under Code Ann. 40-2701. Although report public record, is a inquiry. "[a]ll
not The Act terminate our county municipal records, those, order being prohibited a court are State from general public, open inspection by shall personal inspection any Georgia . . .” citizen of Code §Ann. 40-2701. portions
The state
the excised
claims
report
"by
exempted
are
law.” Code Ann.
protects
files,'
"medical records and similar
the disclosure
personal privacy.” It
of which would be an invasion of
argues
report
personnel file
first that the
amounts to a
specifically
file,
which is "similar” to a medical
exempted from the Act.1 We have reviewed the
Law,”
relies on the
state here
"Sunshine
unexpurgated
version
which was
envelope,
transmitted
this court
a sealed
and find
nothing contained
therein which could be considered
personnel
file. It does "not contain the
amounts of
'vast
personal
profile
which constitute the kind of
[cit.]
data/
an individual
in his
file:
ordinarily
personnel
found
born,
showing,
example,
where he was
the names
his
time,
parents,
high
where he has lived
time to
from
records,
examinations,
school or other school
results of
evaluations
his work
of the Air
performance.” Dept.
(1976).
Rose,
Force
S.
Since we
file,
that the
is not a
personnel
we decline to
decide
a personnel
whether
file
se
per would be
access under
of the Act.
that,
state next
even if the
file,
personnel
as a
its contents
should
ground
nevertheless
be disclosed on the
that negative
profession
comment on one’s
constitutes
"an invasion of
personal
and is
un
privacy,”
exempted "by
thus
law”
*3
3 of the
Act. We construe
as
der
this clause
the intent of
manifesting
the General
Assembly
reports which include
the elements of the tort
invasion
privacy
to
from the disclosure
requirements
the Act. The
right
privacy,
tort, however,
in
extends
to
only
unnecessary
public
344)
(91
scrutiny.3 Waters v.
negative
comments
job
individual’s
bemay
slander.
3"
right
person
of a
...
to be free from
'[T]he
unwarranted
publicity,
...
the unwarranted
appropriation
exploitation
of one’s
the
personality,
publicizing
private
of one’s
affairs with which the public
”
has no legitimate
Pontiac,
concern.’ Gouldman-Taber
Zerbst,
881)
Inc. v.
213 Ga.
(195%).
government
inquiry
institution
of a
into the
public policy
contrary,
employed
the
the
it.4 On
those
legislature
clearly expressed by
in
the
state has been
purpose
adopting
The
information
Act.
encourage
public
in order
to such
access
public
expenditure
funds
can
functioning
proper
institutions,
itsof
efficient and
through
government
in
also to foster confidence
but
public.
openness
That
information
performance
upon
officials’
certain
comment
their official
courts.
suppression by the
duties
not warrant
give
nothing
in
would
rise
We find
privacy.
action for invasion
to an
urges
Lastly,
should be
protected "by
a court of this
under Code
order of
State”
balancing
established a
test
Ann. 40-2701.This
has
applied
carrying
the courts
this state in
out this
aptly
It has
most
stated
mandate.
been
controversy
765: "When a
of this
public official,
and a
arises between citizen
nature
important
determining
judiciary
duty
has the rather
non-inspection
inspection or
records
whether
is
judiciary
short,
in the
interest. In
inspection
public in
interest of the
balance the
non-inspection
against
interest
favor
deciding
Accord,
Minter, 243
this issue.”
Brown v.
(1979); Griffin-Spalding Hospital
WKEU,
who dissent.
Argued September January Rehearing denied
David W. Griffeth, appellants. General, Evans, Arthur K. Attorney L. Alfred Jr., General, Senior Assistant Attorney appellees. Justice, dissenting. Jordan, I dissent from Division 1 opinion holding that here under consideration is a public record as defined by the statute. The statute that "records” shall be for public inspection. Code 40-2701. In my opinion this language is not enough encompass broad notes, all papers, writings description. all A "record” is the official action taken aby agency board or which is designated permanent to remain as evidence of such action. Only memorials representing ultimate action "are, sense, in a public.” Sanchez v. of Regents Board Eastern New Mexico N. M. 672 University, P2d The documents here sought are written merely opinions evaluations or of an outside group experts. Until acted on officially by university officials such material does not assume the status of a public "record” or writing.
I therefore dissent from the Division opinion and would not questions reach the presented in Division 2 of the opinion.
I am authorized to state that Justice Bowles and Justice join Marshall in this dissent.