The Honorable E. L. Short Opinion No. H- 852
Chairman
Committee on Intergovernmental Re: Length of time required
Affairs before an incorporated city
House of Representatives may destroy the original
Austin, Texas 78701 paper public record after
it has been microfilmed.
Dear Mr. Short:
you ask when original paper public documents may be
destroyed by a city after being microfilmed. In addition,
you ask when the microfilm records may be destroyed.
From 1947 to 1971, the authority of.political subdivisions,
including cities, to duplicate and dispose of original records
generally was regulated by article 657413,V.T.C.S., which
specifically provided that:
Whenever photographic duplicates of public
records are so made . . . the original
records may be . . . destroyed or otherwise
disposed of, provided, however, that no
original record shall be destroyed or other-
wise disposed of unless or until the time
for filing legal proceedings based on such
record shall have elapsed, and, in no event,
shall any original public record be
destroyed or otherwise disposed of until
said public record is at least fiver
TEFS old . . . . -sasis added).-
!J&4Y--
p. 3595
The Honorable E. L. Short - page 2 (H-852)
In 1971, article 1941(a), V.T.C.S., was enacted for counties,
repealing article 6574b insofar as in conflict, and providing
that counties could dispose of original records only after
the microfilm copy had been used for five years.
In 1975, article 6574~~ V.T.C.S., was enacted for in-
corporated cities. It repealed article 6574b insofar as the
two conflicted and provided, in section 3, that cities could
enact ordinances for disposal of their records:
Original public records which are micro-
filmed in compliance with an ordinance
authorized by this Act may be destroyed
after five Original public records
wm -F='
are no microfilmed in compliance
with an ordinance authorized by this Act
or are determined worthless by the govern-
ing body of an incorporated city may be
destroyed as directed by the governing
body. Notice of proposed destruction or
disposition of original public records
shall first be given to the State Librarian
or State Archivist, and if such records
are, in his opinion, needed for the State
Library, the records shall be transferred
thereto. (Emphasis added).
Since your question is directed only to those paper documents
that are microfilmed, we do not address the question of a
governing body's authority to destroy records that are not
microfilmed. In our opinion, it is clear that public records
which are microfilmed may be destroyed only "after five years."
However, you further question whether "after five years"
in article 6574~ means five years after the document came
into existence (i.e., "five years old" as previously provided
in article 65746) five years after the document is micro-
filmed (i.e., as provided for counties in article 1941(a)).
Article-c is ambiguous in this regard, and it is appro-
priate in determining legislative intent to refer to other
statutes. includinc revealed ones. relatina to the same
subject matter.
51. In our opinion,
& materia with article 6574~ is its predecessor for -
p. 3596
: -
The Honorable E. L. Short - page 3 (H-852)
incorporated citie6, article 6574b, which has been repealed
only insofar as they conflict. See Attorney General Opinion
H-523 (1975). Therefore, an ord=nce passed under article
6574~ may provide that, after microfilming, original paper
documents are to be destroyed'once they are at least five
years old. The ordinance similarly may provide for the
destruction of documents already five years old at the time
of microfilming. In neither instance, however, may such
destruction occur until after the State Librarian or State
Archivist has had an opportunity to order the records trans-
ferred to the State Library as provided in article 6574~.
your last question concerns when the microfilm record
may be destroyed. In section 2 of article 6574c, such micro-
film records are defined as "original public records." It is
possible therefore to construe section3 of the article to
allow destruction of microfilm copies once they are five years
old. In our opinion, such a result would be contrary to the
apparent legislative intent evidenced elsewhere in the article,
such as in section 1 of article 6574c, which requires that the
microfilm process result in "permanent" copies,. In addition,
such a result would be contrary to past legislative policy
in favor of maintaining public records, and to:the ,historical
purpose of microfilm copies as permitting a permanent reten-
tion of public documents with a minimum use of space. See
s V.T.C.S. arts. 1941a, 1899, 6574b; Attorney General
Opinions WW-1456 (19621, WW-793 (1960) and V-1079 (1950).
We believe the section 2 description of microfilm records as
original public records was intended only for purposes of
the use of such records in court as provided in section 2 of
article 6574~ and not for purposes of destruction as provided
in section 3.
SUMMARY
A city ordinance passed pursuant to article
6574c, V.T.C.S., may provide that, after
microfilming, original public records may
be destroyed when they are at least five
p. 3597
The Honorable E. L. Short - page 4 (H-852)
years old. Article 6574~ does not provide
for the destruction of the microfilm
records after five years.
ery truly yours,
APPROVED:
Opinion Committee
jwb
p. 3598