{
  "id": 2499752,
  "name": "THE ELKIN TRIBUNE, INC., THE NORTH CAROLINA PRESS ASSOCIATION, INC., and THE NORTH CAROLINA FIRST AMENDMENT FOUN-DATION, INC. v. YADKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, GRADY J. HUNTER, ARTHUR H. WINTERS, MICHAEL D. CROUSE, RONALD O. BALL and THOMAS T. WOOTEN; AND JOHN BARBER, Interim County Manager",
  "name_abbreviation": "Elkin Tribune, Inc. v. Yadkin County Board of County Commissioners",
  "decision_date": "1992-06-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 431PA91",
  "first_page": "735",
  "last_page": "738",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "331 N.C. 735"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "403 S.E.2d 291",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "328 N.C. 651",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2538925
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/328/0651-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 367,
    "char_count": 7729,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.718,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3036566828175262e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6227345686949316
    },
    "sha256": "377701971f3cef4fff24118248285f7ed2e2e2061f0112b24ec97ddb1f84d468",
    "simhash": "1:ea7cb918379b12c1",
    "word_count": 1225
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:05:46.767853+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Justice LAKE did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "THE ELKIN TRIBUNE, INC., THE NORTH CAROLINA PRESS ASSOCIATION, INC., and THE NORTH CAROLINA FIRST AMENDMENT FOUN-DATION, INC. v. YADKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, GRADY J. HUNTER, ARTHUR H. WINTERS, MICHAEL D. CROUSE, RONALD O. BALL and THOMAS T. WOOTEN; AND JOHN BARBER, Interim County Manager"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WEBB, Justice.\nThis case brings to the Court a question as to the availability to the public of the names and applications of people who have applied for the position of county manager in a county of this state. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 153A-98 provides in part:\n(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of G.S. 132-6 or any other general law or local act concerning access to public records, personnel files of employees, former employees, or applicants for employment maintained by a county are subject to inspection and may be disclosed only as provided by this section. For purposes of this section, an employee\u2019s personnel file consists of any information in any form gathered by the county with respect to that employee and, by way of illustration but not limitation, relating to his application, selection or nonselection, performance, promotions, demotions, transfers, suspension and other disciplinary actions, evaluation forms, leave, salary, and termination of employment. As used in this section, \u201cemployee\u201d includes former employees of the county.\nIf the inspection and disclosure of applications for the position of county manager are governed by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 153A-98, they are not governed by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 132-6 of the Public Records Act because N.C.G.S. \u00a7 153A-98 provides such inspection and disclosure may only be done as provided by that section.\nWe hold that the inspection and disclosure of applications for positions as county manager are subject to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 153A-98. The section says \u201cpersonnel files of . . . applicants for employment maintained by a county\u201d are subject to inspection and may be disclosed only as provided by this section. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 153A-98 (1991). If an application for employment as county manager is part of the applicant\u2019s personnel file, the application is subject to the section. In defining personnel files of county employees the section includes \u201cany information in any form gathered by the county . . . and, by way of illustration but not limitation, relating to his application^]\u201d Id. The definition of a personnel file in the section applies only to employees. It is a definition, however, that comports with the commonly understood definition of a personnel file. We believe it should also apply to the files of applicants. The definition \u201cany information in any form . . . relating to his application\u201d covers applications for employment. Id.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 153A-98 defines' employees to include former employees. It is significant that applicants are not included in this definition. The section then provides that some information as to employees may be disclosed under certain circumstances. The section provides that personnel files \u201care subject to inspection and may be disclosed only as provided by this section.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 153A-98 (1991). There is not a provision in the section for the access to the files of applicants for positions with counties. It was error for the court to order the release of the applications for the position of County Manager.\nThe plaintiffs argue that the personnel file which is defined and made confidential in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 153A-98 does not include applications for employment. They say that it was intended to make confidential such things as the subjective, evaluative information about an employee, such as letters of recommendation, opinions of former employers, test scores, performance evaluations and complaints. The statute provides that a \u201cpersonnel file consists of any information in any form gathered by the county with respect to that employee and, by way of illustration but not limitation, relating to his application!.]\u201d Id. This definition includes an application.\nThe plaintiffs also argue that the section says it applies to information \u201cgathered by the county.\u201d Id. The applicants, say the plaintiffs, sent their applications to the County. They say that applications were not gathered by the County and thus are not subject to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 153A-98. In reading the whole section we believe it is clear the word \u201cgathered\u201d includes applications that were sent to the County.\nThe plaintiffs argue further that if the section is not-.interpreted to include applicants in the definition of employees, the section makes no sense. They say the definition of an employee\u2019s personnel file contains as an example his \u201cselection or nonselection[.]\u201d The plaintiffs say this shows that it was intended to include applicants who were not hired. The plain words of the statute include former employees in the definition of employees. The section deals with applicants but it does not include them in the definition of employees. We can only conclude that the section does not include applicants as employees. When the plain words of a statute are clear as to legislative intent, we do not look further for an interpretation. Electric Supply Co. v. Swain Electrical Co., 328 N.C. 651, 403 S.E.2d 291 (1991).\nFor the reasons stated in this opinion, we reverse and remand with an order that the relief for which the plaintiffs prayed be denied.\nReversed and remanded.\nJustice LAKE did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WEBB, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Everett, Gaskins, Hancock & Stevens, by Katherine R. White, Everett & Everett, by James A. Everett, for plaintiff appellees.",
      "James Lee Graham and Finger, Parker & Avram, by Raymond A. Parker, II, for defendant appellants.",
      "James B. Blackburn, III, for North Carolina Association of County Commissioners, amicus curiae.",
      "S. Ellis Hankins, General Counsel, and Kimberly L. Smith, Assistant General Counsel, for North Carolina League of Municipalities, amicus curiae."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE ELKIN TRIBUNE, INC., THE NORTH CAROLINA PRESS ASSOCIATION, INC., and THE NORTH CAROLINA FIRST AMENDMENT FOUN-DATION, INC. v. YADKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, GRADY J. HUNTER, ARTHUR H. WINTERS, MICHAEL D. CROUSE, RONALD O. BALL and THOMAS T. WOOTEN; AND JOHN BARBER, Interim County Manager\nNo. 431PA91\n(Filed 25 June 1992)\nCounties \u00a7 37 (NCI4th|; State \u00a7 1.2 (NCI3d)\u2014 applications for county commissioner \u2014no right of inspection by public\nThe inspection and disclosure of applications for the position of county manager are governed by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 153A-98, not by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 132-6 of the Public Records Act, and since there is no provision in \u00a7 153A-98 for access to the files of applicants for positions with counties, the trial court erred in ordering that plaintiffs be given access to the names and applications of persons who applied for the county manager position.\nAm Jur 2d, Inspection Laws \u00a7\u00a7 1, 6, 7.\nJustice Lake did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.\nON discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 prior to determination by the Court of Appeals of an order denying the defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss and granting judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, entered by Freeman (William HJ, J., in Superior Court, YADKIN County on 15 July 1991. Heard in the Supreme Court 10 December 1991.\nIn the spring of 1991, defendant, the Yadkin County Board of Commissioners, instructed the interim Yadkin County Manager to begin taking applications for the position of County Manager. On 24 May 1991, plaintiff, The Elkin Tribune, Inc., requested that all submitted applications be made available to the Tribune for inspection. The Board refused this request.\nThe plaintiffs brought this action pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 132-9 and the North Carolina Declaratory Judgment Act, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-253 et seq., seeking a judgment that all applications received by the Board for the position of Yadkin County Manager are \u201cpublic records\u201d as defined by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 132-1, et seq., and requiring that the Tribune be permitted to inspect and copy the applications.\nWe granted the defendants\u2019 petition for discretionary review.\nEverett, Gaskins, Hancock & Stevens, by Katherine R. White, Everett & Everett, by James A. Everett, for plaintiff appellees.\nJames Lee Graham and Finger, Parker & Avram, by Raymond A. Parker, II, for defendant appellants.\nJames B. Blackburn, III, for North Carolina Association of County Commissioners, amicus curiae.\nS. Ellis Hankins, General Counsel, and Kimberly L. Smith, Assistant General Counsel, for North Carolina League of Municipalities, amicus curiae."
  },
  "file_name": "0735-01",
  "first_page_order": 777,
  "last_page_order": 780
}