June 18, 1991
Subject: Public Records; Test Scores and Applications for Licensure and Related Materials Received by the North Carolina Board for Licensing of Geologists
Requested By: Charles H. Gardner, Director Division of Land Resources Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Question: Are test scores and applications for licensure and related materials received by the North Carolina Board for Licensing of Geologists subject to public inspection and examination under
G.S. 132-6?
Conclusion: No.
Test scores and applications for licensure and related materials received by the North Carolina Board for Licensing of Geologists (Board) are public records as defined by G.S. 132-1. Pursuant to G.S. 89E-14(c), the Board is required to treat these records as confidential and not subject to disclosure except to the extent required by law or by rule or regulation of the Board. The issue to be addressed by this opinion is whether the Board is required by G.S. 132-6 to make these records available for public inspection and examination.
It is always presumed that the legislature acted with care and deliberation and with full knowledge of prior and existing law. State v. Benton, 276 NC 641, 174 SE2d 793 (1970). The public records law existed prior to the enactment of the Geologists Licensing Act; therefore, it can be presumed that the legislature was aware of the public records law when it provided for the confidentiality of test scores and applications and related matters in G.S. 89E-14(c).
Statutes dealing with the same subject matter must be construed in pari materia, and harmonized, if possible, to give effect to each. Shaw v. Baxley, 270 NC 740, 155 SE2d 256 (1967); Jackson v. Guilford County Board of Adjustment, 275 NC 155, 166 SE2d 78 (1969). Any irreconcilable ambiguity should be resolved so as to effectuate the true legislative intent. State ex rel Commissioner of Ins. v. North Carolina Auto. Rate Administrative Office, 287 NC 192, 214 SE2d 98 (1975). Moreover, the latest enactment will control or will be regarded as an exception to or a qualification of the prior statute. State v. Hutson, 10 NC App 653, 179 SE2d 858 (1971). Under G.S. 89E-14(a) the records of the Board’s proceedings and the register kept by the Board are public records subject to public inspection and examination pursuant to G.S. 132-6. Under
G.S. 89E-14(b), the register has to show: the name, the age and the residency of each applicant; the date of application; the place of business of such applicant; his or her education and other qualifications; whether or not an examination was required; whether the applicant was licensed; whether a license was granted; the dates of the action by the Board; and such other information deemed necessary by the Board. However, G.S. 89E-14(c) specifically provides that individual test scores and applications and material relating thereto, including letters of reference relating to an application, are to be treated as confidential and not subject to disclosure by the Board. Since the public records law was adopted in 1935, and the Geologists Licensing Act was adopted in 1983 (Reg. Sess. 1984), the latter statute controls, and the confidentiality provision in G.S. 89E14(c) should be deemed an exception to the public records law. The Board would have to disclose the records kept confidential under G.S. 89E-14(c) if a court enters an order pursuant to
G.S. 132-9 compelling disclosure of the records.
A statute is presumed to have meaning and will be upheld if its meaning is ascertainable with reasonable certainty by proper construction. Hobbs v. County of Moore, 267 NC 665, 149 SE2d 1 (1966); State v. Dorsett, 3 NC App 331, 164 SE2d 607 (1968). A construction of a statute which operates to defeat or impair the object of the statute must be avoided if that can reasonably be done without violence to the legislative language. In Re Hardy, 294 NC 90, 240 SE2d 367 (1978); State v. Hart, 287 NC 76, 213 SE2d 291 (1975). In construing statutes, courts normally adopt an interpretation which will avoid absurd or bizarre consequences, the presumption being that the legislature acted in accordance with reason and common sense and did not intend untoward results. Commissioner of Ins. v. North Carolina Auto. Rate Administrative Office, 294 NC 60, 239 SE2d 48 (1978). The confidentiality provision in G.S. 89E-14(c) would be meaningless if the test scores and the application and related materials were subject to public inspection and examination pursuant G.S. 132-6.
Therefore, it is the opinion of this Office that the test scores and application and related materials received by the North Carolina Board for Licensing Geologists are not subject to public inspection and examination under G.S. 132-6.
LACY H. THORNBURG Attorney General
Kathryn Jones Cooper Assistant Attorney General