|
|
| |
| Mon, Dec. 1, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
Court says private firm not subject to FOIA Friday, Nov 2, 2007 By Rob Moritz Arkansas News Bureau LITTLE ROCK - A private company doing business with the state is not subject to being sued to make its records of the deal public under the state Freedom of Information Act, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday. In a unanimous decision, the high court overturned a lower court decision ordering Nabholz Construction Co. to release a detailed listing of $2.5 million in overhead expenses it received for construction of a $35 million dormitory at the University of Arkansas. "We're obviously pleased," Nabholz attorney Jeff Moore said. "Our position was that a private company shouldn't receive (Freedom of Information) letters." The contractor advocacy group Contractors for Public Protection Association had asked the high court to affirm Pulaski County Circuit Judge Marion Humphrey's ruling to release the records under the FOI law. The group opposes a state law that allows the awarding of contracts on projects of more than $5 million without competitive bidding. It directly challenges the constitutionality of the law in a separate lawsuit pending in Pulaski County Circuit Court. In Thursday's 10-page ruling, the Supreme Court said Nabholz was not an entity of the state and could not be sued under the state FOI law. The court declined to decide whether the documents requested are public or subject to the law. "The question remains as to whether the documents could be considered under the administrative control of the university, such that they would be subject to disclosure, if found to be public records," Justice Paul Danielson wrote. "Nevertheless, in the instant case, CFPPA filed suit not against an entity that would be covered under the (FOIA), but solely against Nabholz, a private corporation," Danielson said. "Therefore, because CFPPA did not bring suit against an entity covered by the FOIA, we reverse and dismiss the matter, along with the circuit court's order granting attorney's fees. A lawyer for the contractor advocacy group did not immediately return a call seeking comment. |
