'
have a copy of any public record. The state supreme court has concluded that these statutory rights extend to all
documents meeting the definition of public record, unless the General Assembly has enacted a statute that limits
or denies public access to a category of record.
2
As a result, the great bulk of material held by local governments
in North Carolina is public record and therefore open to public access. Financial records, leases and contracts,
insurance policies, reports, agency minutes, permit applications, emails, and information in computer databases
are all examples of records that generally must be made available to the public upon request.
The definition of “public record” under the statute is quite broad and generally not limited by the form of the
material in question or by the circumstances under which it was received or created. The statute begins by
including within the definition not only documents and other papers but also “maps, books, photographs, films,
sound recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data-processing records, [and] artifacts, . . . regardless of
physical form or characteristics.” It then goes on to state that the term includes the listed items “made or
received pursuant to law or ordinance in connection with the transaction of public business.” Litigants have
sometimes argued that the latter part of the definition—“made or received pursuant to law or ordinance”—is
limiting and that only those records whose receipt is specifically required by statute or local ordinance are
public records. The court of appeals rejected such a limiting reading in News and Observer Publishing Co. v.
Wake County Hospital System, Inc.,
3
holding instead that the term includes any material kept in carrying out an
agency’s lawful duties. Given its own public records decisions, the state supreme court has obviously accepted
the same broad reading of the statute.
4
In addition, the supreme court has held that the term includes preliminary
drafts of documents and that a person need not wait until a record is finalized in order to examine it or have a
copy.
5
G.S. 132-1 extends the reach of the public records statute to every agency of state and local government in
North Carolina. The section defines the covered agencies to include “every public office, public officer or
official (State or local, elected or appointed), institution, board, commission, bureau, council, department,
authority or other unit of government of the State or of any county, unit, special district or other political
subdivision of government.” Thus at the local level the law extends to counties, cities, school administrative
units, community colleges, special districts, such as sanitary districts and metropolitan sewerage districts, and
public authorities, such as water and sewer authorities, housing authorities, and drainage districts. It also extends
to joint entities, such as councils of government, district health departments, area mental health authorities,
regional libraries, and joint agencies established by contracts between local governments.
Personal Records Distinguished
Public employees often create records at work and use government resources that do not relate to the transaction
of public business. Most commonly, perhaps, these might include email communications with family members,
calendar entries reflective of personal activities, and other records of a purely personal nature. Based on the
definition of “public record” under North Carolina’s statute, these types of records are not public records, since
they are not made in connection with the transaction of public business. Under this definition, it is the subject
and purpose of the record, rather than its location on a public or private medium, that governs its
characterization as a public record. Although North Carolina case law has not addressed this issue to date, courts
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
2. News and Observer Publ’g Co., Inc. v. Poole, 330 N.C. 465, 412 S.E.2d 7 (1992).
3. 55 N.C. App. 1, 284 S.E.2d 542 (1981).
4. E.g., Poole, supra note 2.
5. Id.
6.
See City of Ontario, California, et al., v. Quon et al., No. 08-1332, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 4972 (U.S. June 17, 2010).