WPCώ x@Ark8&k ~7) u*I^qWUE/d<hJ$xHx :2=L,AI\F`,9gL,e?D\P|,G/8~,3q%YZio]D`js 1aSb\Nn(Q (+E 8PfSjzO`_IםU{UZ|񫔳Icef1m6G%yٓon"P炀*JB:@B6 0v<7 0`7 0`8 0`r8 0`8 0`29 089 09 02: 0: 0:; 0Y< 0_]< 0 < 0j= 00? B*@ D/@ 0 A D/B 0B 06C 0C 0:D 0E 0^E 0<OFU6F B FU>F 0G D3G D-G 0K HU*kH ASHH 0I 0DRJ AJ 0AK 05L 1u&M 72M 0NM 0cN 0~N 0wlO 0O 0mP 0 Q 0Q 0R 0cS 0DRT 1U 0V 0 W 0W 0X 0Y 0Zt[ 0p^ 0R_ 01` 0 a 0a 0b 0c 0_d 0,e 0e 0f 0g 0h 0hi 0=j 0k 0k 0lsmqo`Tq?u^vNQxy;}11UN7 1 72HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular R1$      1     _MikeKerr,AssistantManagingEditorofTheCommercialAppeal,wasalsoapartytothepetition. C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPT C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt Q R1$      3     _Chapter960hassincebeencodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.84116(Supp.2001).Toavoidconfusion,itwill  bereferredtobytheformertitle.Chapter960providesinpertinentpart: t 8  (a)Entitiescontractingwiththestateorlocalgovernmentstoperformgovernmentservicesshallbe L subjecttoauditbythecomptrollerofthetreasurytoassurethatpublicfundsareexpendedin  accordancewiththepublicpurposeforwhichtheywerecontracted.   8  (b)Notwithstandinganyotherprovisionoflaworexistingcontract,thecomptrollerofthetreasuryis  \ herebyauthorizedtoconductanauditoftherecordsofanyentitycontractingwiththeStateof   Tennesseeorlocalgovernmententities...ifsuchcontractingentityderivesfiftypercent(50%)or    moreofitsgrossrevenuefromsuchstateorlocalentityorentities.Allbooks,records,documents,and X   otherevidencepertainingtothereceipt,accountingfor,useand/orexpenditureofanypublicfunds  l  byanysuchcontractingentityshallbeavailableforexaminationbythecomptrollerofthetreasury  0  duringnormalbusinesshoursthroughon-sitereview.Inthealternative,andinthecomptrollerssole   discretion,suchrecordsmaybeprovidedthroughthemailorothermethodsofdatatransmission.Such h  auditsshalltakeplaceasoftenasnecessary,andtotheextentnecessary,inthediscretionofthe ,|  comptrollerofthetreasuryandinconformancewithgenerallyacceptedauditingstandards,to @  determinewhetherpublicfundsreceivedbytheentitywereproperlyaccountedforandexpendedin   accordancewiththepublicpurposeforwhichtheentitywascontracted.Thecomptrollerofthe x  treasuryshallhavesuchauthoritynotwithstandingwhetherthecontractisintheformofa < fee-for-servicecontract,avendorcontract,acostreimbursementcontract,anycombinationofthese P typesofcontract,oranyotherformofcontract.   8  ..._._#L    #Ї8  SECTION2.Theprovisionsofthisactaredeclaredtoberemedialinnatureandtothatendshall  applytoallcontractsinforcewhenthisacttakeseffect.t   8  TheprovisionsofthisactshallberetroactivetoJanuary1,1992.L   Gr%-s Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 59,3|x U  R1$      2     _TheComptrolleroftheTreasuryisaconstitutionalofficertowhomthelegislaturehasgivenwideranging  dutiesinoverseeingtheuseofpublicfunds.SeegenerallyTenn.Const.Art.VII3;Tenn.CodeAnn.84101to t Є407(1993andSupp.2001).*+ (_2623  ..(#$  0  *G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -(DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7K(X7  ?\%2A`Arial?  SW\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dJ)1dxd<:zTop of For7M(X7  ?\%2A`Arial?  SW\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7J)2dxd0KS.SampleKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable(|G21$ !.8R5dXXd8         0   : 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New d\  `&Times New Roman(|3T$ !.8R5dXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  %2A`Arial^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3T$ !.8R5dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)di)(O$(;3$2#  0  .3  0  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# gijklmnoxGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5   McCarrollFaughnan PeraLaizureWisemanHacklemanPublgPublgPublgPublg TDHS DHS MPCGleavesForsberg Housserve[dw]hileFeiser U.L. E.S.Savas t]heCaponioGeffner DuqGovtPublgTwittyHanserAbellMezzanote thePublg SysD.D.C.PublgCommnCommnSocy KanAttyAttyAtty2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5    R1$      4     _MemphisPublishingCo.wastransferredfromtheWesternSectionoftheCourtofAppealstotheMiddle  Section.Thecaseswereconsolidatedforthepurposeofconsideration,buttheCourtofAppealsdirectedinitsorder t thattherecordsofthetwocaseswouldbemaintainedseparatelyandthecaseswouldbebriefedseparately.  R1$      5     _OtherpartsoftheActprovideexceptionstothisbroadgeneralprovisionbysettingforthclassesofconfidential  recordsnotsubjecttoinspection.See,e.g.,Tenn.CodeAnn.107504(1999andSupp.2001)andstatutescross t referencedthereunder.Noneoftheseexceptionsarerelevanthere. V R1$      6     _Anotherdefinitionof recordsappearsinPart1oftheAct,whichstatesthattheterm shallbeconstruedto  meananyrecordsofthecountylegislativebodyandcommonlaw,circuit,criminal,orchancerycourt,theregisters t books,thesurveyorsandentrytakersbook,andallotherpublicrecords,requiredbylawtobekeptintheseveralcourts 8 ofthisstate.Tenn.CodeAnn.107101(1999).AstheCourtofAppealsnotedinCreativeRestaurants,Inc.v.City L ofMemphis,however,itisevidentthatthedefinitionprovidedbythisprovisionwasnotintendedtoapplytootherparts  oftheAct,andindeed,itispossiblethattheinclusionofthatstatuteaspartoftheActmaybe acompilerserror,  occurringintherenumberingofthe1980editionoftheCode.795S.W.2d672,675(Tenn.Ct.App.1990). 5 R1$      7     _Thecourtfurthernotedthatthecorporationdidnotclaimgovernmentalimmunityfromsuitintortactionsand  wasnotformallycontrolledbythestate.Id. T R1$      8     _Inaddition,thecourtheld,forsimilarreasons,thatdocumentsinthehandsofaparttimecityattorneywere  publicrecordsbecausetheattorneywasthecitysagent.Id.at67879. D R1$      9     _Foranoverviewofhowprivatizationarrangementsfunction,seegenerallyE.S.Savas,Essay:Privatization  andtheNewPublicManagement,28FordhamUrb.L.J.1731(2001).  R1$      10     _PertinentprovisionsofConnecticutsFreedomofInformationActmandatedthatpublicagenciesprovide  schedulesoftheirmeetingstomembersofthepublicuponrequest.SeeConnecticutHumane_Socy_,591A.2dat396 t n.2(quotingConn.Gen.Stat.121c).AdditionalportionsoftheActdefined publicagencytoinclude any 8 executive,administrativeorlegislativeofficeofthestateoranypoliticalsubdivisionofthestateandanystateortown L agency,anydepartment,institution,bureau,board,commission,authority,orofficialofthestate....Id.at396  (quotingConn.Gen.Stat.118a(a)).  R1$      11     _MarylandsPublicInformationAct,likeTennesseesPublicRecordsAct,providesthatitsprovisions shall  bebroadlyconstruedineveryinstancewiththeviewtowardpublicaccess.Md.Code,Art.76A,1A,quotedin t Mezzanote,464A.2dat1071. ' R1$      12     _Floridashouldbedistinguishedfromtheotherjurisdictionsdiscussedabovebecausethetermsofitspublic  recordsstatuteexplicitlyextendtoprivateentities actingonbehalfofapublicagency.NewsandSunSentinelCo., t 596So.2dat1031(quotingFla.Stat.119.011(2)).ThefactorsusedbyFloridacourtsindeterminingwhetheraprivate 8 entityisactingonbehalfofapublicagency,however,arenotable: L 8  Thefactorsinclude,butarenotlimitedto:1)thelevelofpublicfunding;2)comminglingoffunds;  3)whethertheactivitywasconductedonpubliclyownedproperty;4)whetherservicescontractedfor H  areanintegralpartofthepublicagencyschosendecisionmakingprocess;5)whethertheprivate  \ entityisperformingagovernmentalfunctionorafunctionwhichthepublicagencyotherwisewould   perform;6)theextentofthepublicagencysinvolvementwith,regulationof,orcontroloverthe    privateentity;7)whethertheprivateentitywascreatedbythepublicagency;8)whetherthepublic X   agencyhasasubstantialfinancialinterestintheprivateentity;and9)for[whose]benefittheprivate  l  entityisfunctioning. 0    Id. R1$      13     _SeeTenn.CodeAnn.107505(d)(1999).  R1$      15     _Additionally,MPCassertsinitsbriefthatattorneysfeesandcostsshouldbeassessedagainstCherokee  becauseit clearlyrefusedtoprovideaccesstocertainrecordsitknewwerepublicrecordssubjecttotheaccess t requirementsoftheTennesseePublicRecordsAct.UndertheAct,thedecisionwhethertoawardattorneysfeesisleft 8 tothediscretionofthetrialcourt;consequently,wewillnotdisturbthatdecisionabsentclearevidenceofanabuseof L thatdiscretion.Tenn.CodeAnn.107505(g)(1999);seealsoAaronv.Aaron,909S.W.2d408,411(Tenn.1995)  ( Theallowanceofattorneysfeesislargelyinthediscretionofthetrialcourt,andtheappellatecourtwillnotinterfere  exceptuponaclearshowingofabuseofthatdiscretion.).Inthecaseundersubmission,thetrialcourtdeniedattorneys H  fees,stating, Becausethisdecisioninvolvedacomplexinterpretationofcontrollingcaselawandcontractuallanguage,  \ Cherokeesrefusaltoturnoverdocumentsto[MPC]cannotbedeemedwillful.Basedonourreviewoftherecord,we   concludethatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninsoholding,andthereforeweaffirm.(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular  R1$      14     _Weemphasizethatourrationaleisdrivenbyourinterpretationoftheterm publicrecordsintheTennessee  PublicRecordsActandbyconsiderationsuniquetothepoliciesfurtheredbytheAct.Hence,ourdecisionhasnobearing t uponotherareasofthelawinvolvinggovernmentalentities.8 CSY_ekqw}Numbers 2Numbers1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. !.8R5dd8     _   8YXXdd8  @@ ^4INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @@kk$ATNASHVILLE & R5^4February6,2002Session L XYXR5 #R5XXY#MEMPHISPUBLISHINGCOMPANY,etal.,v. J CHEROKEECHILDREN&FAMILYSERVICES,INC.,etal.XYXR5   ^ @   AppealbypermissionfromtheCourtofAppeals,MiddleSection  ^   CircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  J @@ No.CT00214100JohnR.McCarroll,Jr.,Judge#R5XXY#XYXR5  6  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@ No.M200001705SCR11CVFiledSeptember5,2002   AV) ` dE<` A   #R5XXY#  XYXR5@)AND#R5XXYu#   JOHNMORGANv.CHEROKEECHILDREN&FAMILYSERVICES,INC.XYXR5   @@m m  AppealbypermissionfromtheCourtofAppeals,MiddleSection  ChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty x No.002419IICarolL.McCoy,Chancellor#R5XXY%#XYXR5Ԁ d \@*AV) ` dE<;` A߈ < @ No.M200002382SCR11CVFiledSeptember5,_2002_Ԉ 7 AV) ` dE<` A _  #R5XXY\#  XYXR5Thesetwocases,consolidatedforconsideration,presenttwoissuesofenormoussignificance.First, B   wemustdecidewhetheranonprofitcorporationthatprovidesprivatizedservicestoagovernmental .!~! entityissubjecttothepublicaccessrequirementsoftheTennesseePublicRecordsAct.Thesecond "j" issueconcernstheauthorityofthestate,actingthroughtheComptrolleroftheTreasury,torequire #V# saidcorporationtosubmittoastateaudit.InMemphisPublishingCo.v.CherokeeChildren& #B$ FamilyServices,Inc.,MemphisPublishingCompanyandothersseekaccesstorecordsbelonging $. % toCherokeeChildren&FamilyServices,Inc.,anonprofitcorporationwhichcontractedwiththe %!& TennesseeDepartmentofHumanServicestohelpadministerastatesubsidizeddaycareprogram. &"' Inseekingaccesstotherecords,theplaintiffsrelyonboththeTennesseePublicRecordsActand '"( provisionsinthecontractsbetweenthecorporationandthestate.InMorganv.CherokeeChildren (#) &FamilyServices,Inc.,theComptrolleroftheTreasury,JohnMorgan,seekstorequirethesame z)$* corporationtosubmittoastateaudit.Asauthorityfortheaudit,Morganreliesuponthecontracts f*%+ atissueinMemphisPublishingCo.andupon2000Tenn.Pub.Acts.960(nowcodifiedatTenn. R+&, CodeAnn.84116(Supp.2001)),whichauthorizestheComptrollertoaudittherecordsofentities >,'- whichderivefifty percentormoreoftheirgrossrevenuefromstateorlocalgovernment.Thetrial *-z(. courtsinthetwocasesfoundthatCherokeeChildren&FamilyServices,Inc.wasnota  governmentalagency,butthatallrecordsinitspossessionwerestatepropertypursuanttothe  contractsbetweenitandthestate.Additionally,thetrialcourtinMorganfoundthatanauditwas  authorizedby2000Tenn.Pub.Acts960.TheCourtofAppealsreversed,holdingthat(1)the t contractualprovisionsatissuedidnotrendertherecordspublic;(2)CherokeeChildren&Family ` Services,Inc.wasnotagovernmentalagencysubjecttothePublicRecordsAct;and(3)retroactive L  applicationof2000Tenn.Pub.Acts960inMorganwouldbeunconstitutional.Wegranted 8  permissiontoappeal.Becausewehavedetermined,forthereasonsoutlinedbelow,thatCherokee $ t Children&FamilyServices,Inc.operatesasthe functionalequivalentofagovernmental(state)  ` agency,weholdthatallofitsrecordsaresubjecttotheTennesseePublicRecordsActandtherefore  L  areaccessiblebythepublic.Thisresolutioneffectivelyresolvestheauditissue,andaseparate  8  decisionthereuponisunnecessary.Accordingly,thejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsisreversed, $  andthecauseisremandedtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.      Tenn.R.App.P.11AppealbyPermission;JudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsReversed      AdolphoA.Birch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhich FrankDrowota,III,C.J., p E.RileyAnderson,JaniceM.Holder,andWilliamM.Barker,JJ. joined. \ LucianT.Pera,KathyLaughterLaizure,andBrianS.Faughnan,Memphis,Tennessee,forthe 4 appellants,MemphisPublishingCompanyandMikeKerr.  p AlanJ.Wade,ThomasLangWiseman,andLoriHacklemanPatterson,Memphis,Tennessee,forthe H appellee,CherokeeChildren&FamilyServices,Inc. 4 PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral,AlbertL.   Partee,III,SeniorCounsel,fortheappellant,JohnMorgan(inMorgan).  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral,AlbertL.  Partee,III,SeniorCounsel,andWilliamW.Leech,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee, l TennesseeDepartmentofHumanServices(inMemphisPublishingCo.). X  @66' OPINION  #l! @I.FactsandProceduralHistory $D # XYXXXY  CherokeeChildren&FamilyServices,Inc.(Cherokee)isanonprofitpublicbenefit &"% corporation.CreatedinDecember1989,itscharterstatedthatthecorporationwasformedto '#&  providecomprehensivesocialservice.Afewmonthsafteritscreation,Cherokeeenteredintoa (#' contractwiththestate,operatingthroughtheTennesseeDepartmentofHumanServices(TDHS), )$( toprovideservicesrelatedtochildcare.Itthenamendeditscharterbyaddingthefollowing: |*%)  h+&* 8  ThepurposeofCherokeeistoprovidetransitionalchildcareservicesforchildrenof  lowincomefamiliesreferredbytheDepartmentofHumanServices.Fundsforthis  projectareprovidedbyFederalandStateblockgrants#XYXXXY#Ԁwhichareusedfortuition  paymentsandadministrativeexpenses.t   8  Theservicesprovidedby[Cherokee]includethelistingandclassificationofchild L  careproviders,referralsofqualifiedfamiliestoappropriatechildcarecenters,and 8  themonitoringandsupervisionofeachplacementunderguidelinesprovidedby $ t DHS.UponthedissolutionofCherokee...,allremainingassetswillbereturned  ` totheFederalandStateofficeswhichsuppliedtheoriginalgrants. L    XYXXXY  Between1990and2000,CherokeecontractedwithTDHStoperformcertainfunctions $  relatedtogovernmentsubsidizedchildcareservicesinShelbyCounty.Itisimportanttonotehere   thatCherokeedidnot careforor keepchildreninthestrictestsense.Rather,itservedasa    brokeringagencythatscreenedapplicantsandassistedeligibleapplicantsinlocatingapproved   childcareproviders.TDHSpaidthechildcaresubsidiesdirectlytothecarecenters;Cherokee,   therefore,wasnotinvolvedinthepaymentofsubsidiesforthechildcareservices.Virtuallyallof p Cherokeesoperatingrevenue,however,camefromgovernmentsources. \ #XYXXXY"#  OverthecourseofdealingsbetweenCherokeeandtheState,threedifferentcontracts 4 governedtheirbusinessrelationship.Thefirstcontract,executedin1990,wasagrantcontractunder  p whichCherokeeperformedservicesonacostreimbursementbasis.Priortothecommencementof  \ anyworkbyCherokee,theStatewouldapprove allowablecostsinadvance,thenCherokeewould H spendfundstoperformtheworkandinvoicetheStateforreimbursementoftheapprovedcosts. 4   Thesecondcontract,ineffectfrom1992to1999,changedthemethodofpaymenttoafee   forservicesarrangement,underwhichCherokeewaspaida commissioncalculatedasa  percentageofthefundsdisbursedbyTDHStodaycarecentersasaresultofCherokees  administrativeservices.ThemoneyreceivedbyCherokeeunderthe1992contractwasdependent  onlyonsatisfactoryperformanceoftheworkandonthetotalfundsdisbursedbytheStatetodaycare l services;theStatedisclaimedanyresponsibilityforlossesortaxesincurredbyCherokeeinthe X  performanceofthecontract.Thecontractcontainedaprovision,however,allowingtheStatethe D! righttoauditCherokeesrecordswithrespecttoworkperformedormoneyreceivedunderthe 0"  contract.TheStateroutinelyexercisedthisrightbyconductingregularmonitoringvisitsandby #l! reviewingCherokeesclientfiles. $X"   Underthethirdandfinalcontract,whichwasineffectfromJanuary1,2000,untilits %0!$ terminationbytheStateonAugust21,2000,thepartiesreturnedtothecostreimbursementplan &"% utilizedinthe1990contract.Asinthe1992contract,theStatewasallowedtoauditCherokees '#& recordsrelatingtoworkperformedormoneyreceivedunderthecontract;inaddition,Cherokeewas (#' requiredtosubmitanannualindependentaudittotheStateaftereachreportingperiod. )$(   |*%)   Inlate1999,TheCommercialAppeal,adailynewspaperpublishedbyMemphisPublishing   Company(MPC)andservingtheMemphisarea,developedaninterestinCherokeesoperationsand  asserteditsrighttoinspectCherokeesrecordspursuanttotheTennesseePublicRecordsAct(the  Act),whichprovidesinpertinentpartthat allstate,countyandmunicipalrecords...shallatall t times,duringbusinesshours,beopenforpersonalinspectionbyanycitizenofTennessee.... ` Tenn.CodeAnn.107503(a)(1999andSupp.2001).Despiteseveralrequestsandextended L  negotiations,Cherokeerefusedtotendertherecords.Consequently,inMarch2000,MPCfileda 8  petitionseekingaccesstoeightcategoriesofrecordsinCherokeespossession. #  1      ׀MPCsought: $ t 8  1.0`   Allrentalagreements,leases,receiptsofpaymentsandotherrecordsrelated  L  toanyrentalagreementsbetweenCherokeeandAffordableHomes; 8 ` `  8  2.0`   Allreceipts,invoices,contracts,andotherrecordspertainingtoanyandall   professionaland/orconsultingfeespaidbyCherokeesinceJanuary1,1995; ` `  8  3.0`   Recordsdocumentinganyandallpaymentstoofficersanddirectorsof   CherokeesinceJanuary1,1997;p` `  8  4.0`   Allrecords,includingwithoutlimitationinvoices,receipts,andexpense H reports,documentingexpensesfortravel,conferences,conventions,meetings 4 andmealssinceJanuary1,1995,incurredand/orpaidbyCherokee,as  p reflectedinCherokeesannualform990reportsfiledwiththeInternal  \ RevenueService;H` `  8  5.0`   Allinvoices,receipts,andotherrecordsdetailinganddocumentinganyorall    contributionsidentifiedorlistedinCherokeesannualform990reportsto   theInternalRevenueServicefromJanuary1,1995,tothepresent;` `  8  6.0`   Allcanceledchecksandmonthlystatementsinvolvingallbankaccounts  maintainedbyCherokeefromJanuary1,1995,tothepresent;l` `  8  7.0`   Allinvoices,receiptsandanyotherrecordsdocumentingorpertainingto D! rentspaidbyCherokeefromJanuary1,1995,tothepresent;and0" ` `  8  8.0`   Allcontracts,consultingagreements,leases,retainersorotherbinding $X" agreementsenteredintobyCherokeefromJanuary1,1990,tothepresent.$D #` `  MPCassertedthatCherokeesrecordswerepublicrecordssubjecttotheActbecausethetermsof &"% thecontractbetweenCherokeeandTDHSrenderedtherecordspublicproperty.Inaddition,MPC '#& assertedthatbecauseoftheservicesCherokeeperformed,itshouldbedeemedastateagencyfor (#' purposesoftheAct. )$( Ї  DuringthesametimethatMPCwasseekingaccesstoCherokeesrecords,JohnMorgan,the  ComptrolleroftheTreasury, #  2      ׀notifiedCherokeethattheStateintendedtoconductanauditof  CherokeesrecordstoinvestigateCherokeesuseofstateprovidedtransportationandregistration  funds.Thereafter,Morganrequested allbankrecords(statements,canceledchecksanddeposits) t relatedtotransportationfeespaidtoorthrough[Cherokee]fortheperiod[of]September1,1998, ` throughJanuary31,2000.Shortlyaftertheauditbegan,however,Cherokeedeniedtheauditors L  furtheraccesstoitsbankrecords.Afteradditionaldemandsfortherecordswererefused,Morgan 8  filedsuitintheDavidsonCountyChanceryCourtseekingamandatoryinjunctionrequiring $ t Cherokeetosubmittotheaudit.  `   Inthesuit,Morganreliedupontwogroundsforaccesstotherecords.First,citingthesame  8  contractualprovisionsrelieduponbyMPCinitssuit,hecontendedthatallofCherokeesrecords $  werepropertyoftheStateandthattheComptrollerwouldhaveaccesstoanydocumentsdeemed   publicrecordspursuanttotheTennesseePublicRecordsAct.Second,Morgancontendedthat   recentlyenactedlegislation,2000Tenn.Pub.Actsch.960,grantedtheComptrollerauthority,   retroactiveto1992,toauditanyentitywhichcontractedwiththestateorlocalgovernmentsto   providegovernmentservicesandwhichreceivedfiftypercentormoreofitsgrossrevenuefrom p governmentalsources.  #  3       \ Ї  InMemphisPublishingCo.,thetrialcourtrejectedMPCsclaimthatCherokeewasa  governmentalagency,findinginsteadthatitwasanindependentcontractor.Itfurtherheld,however,  thatallofCherokeesrecordswerethepropertyoftheStatepursuanttothecontractsbetween  CherokeeandtheStateandthattherecords,therefore,weresubjecttoaccesspursuanttothe t TennesseePublicRecordsAct.Similarly,thetrialcourtinMorganfoundthatChapter960and ` CherokeescontractswiththeStateprovidedtheComptrollerasummaryremedy,anditordered L  Cherokeetosubmittoanaudit. 8    Cherokeeappealed,andtheCourtofAppealsconsolidatedthecasesforconsideration.( #  4      ׀In  ` twoopinionsreleasedtogether,theintermediatecourtreversedbothtrialcourtsordersgranting  L  accesstoCherokeesrecords.InMemphisPublishingCo.,theappellatecourtagreedthatCherokee  8  wasanindependentcontractor,notagovernmentalagency.Itfurtherheld,however,thatthetrial $  courtsgrantofaccesstoallrecordsinCherokeespossessionwasoverbroad;instead,theCourtof   AppealsinterpretedthecontractualprovisionsdesignatingallofCherokeesrecordsasstateproperty   toreferonlytorecordsconcerningworkperformedormoneyreceivedunderthecontracts.In   Morgan,theappellatecourtreiteratedthisnarrowinterpretationofthecontractsbetweenCherokee   andtheState,anditheldthattheComptrollercouldnotauditCherokeesrecordspursuantto p Chapter960becauseapplicationofthestatutetoCherokeewouldamounttoanunconstitutional \  retrospectivelaw,orlawimpairingtheobligationofcontracts,inviolationofArticle1,20of H theTennesseeConstitution.  4   WegrantedpermissiontoappealinbothMemphisPublishingCo.andMorgan.Becausethe  \ factsandissuesinthetwocasesare interconnected,weacceptthecasesasconsolidated.After H thoroughreviewoftherecordandrelevantauthority,weholdthatallof Cherokeesrecordsare 4 subjecttoaccessbythepublicandtheComptrollerunderthetermsoftheTennesseePublicRecords $ Act.Accordingly,wereversethejudgmentsoftheCourtofAppeals.Becauseourholdinggrants  theComptrolleraccesstotherecordsneededforanauditthroughapplicationoftheAct,itisnot  necessarytoaddresstheconstitutionalityofChapter960ortheComptrollersauthoritypursuant  thereto.    II.StandardofReview \   P H!   OurdeterminationwhethertheTennesseePublicRecordsActappliestotherecordsin   Cherokeespossessionisaquestionoflaw.Wereviewquestionsoflawdenovowithno  presumptionofcorrectnessaccordedtothefindingsofthecourtbelow.SeeGleavesv.CheckerCab  TransitCorp.,Inc.,15S.W.3d799,80203(Tenn.2000);Ridingsv.RalphM.ParsonsCo.,914 t S.W.2d69,80(Tenn.1996).Toagreatextent,ourholdinghingesuponprinciplesofstatutory ` construction,forourdecisionwhetherCherokeesrecordsaresubjecttotheActiscontrolledbythe L  meaningoftheterm publicrecordsasusedintheAct.Wheninterpretingastatute, [t]hemost 8  basicprincipleofstatutoryconstructionistoascertainandgiveeffecttothelegislativeintentwithout $ t undulyrestrictingorexpanding[the]statutescoveragebeyonditsintendedscope.Owensv.State,  ` 908S.W.2d923,926(Tenn.1995).TheGeneralAssemblyhasdeclaredthattheAct shallbe  L  broadlyconstruedsoastogivethefullestpossiblepublicaccesstopublicrecords.Tenn.Code  8  Ann.107505(d)(1999). Our...casesreflectthebroadconstructionofrecordundertheAct $  andaconsistentadherencetothepolicyoffullpublicaccess.Tennesseanv.ElectricPowerBd.,   979S.W.2d279,301(Tenn.1998).Accordingly,weconductourreviewdenovo,andweinterpret   thetermsoftheActliberallytoenforcethepublicinterestinopenaccesstotherecordsofstate,   county,andmunicipalgovernmentalentities.     III.Analysis \ X  TheTennesseePublicRecordsAct governstherightofaccesstorecordsofgovernment 4 agenciesinthisstate.Colev.Campbell,968S.W.2d274,275(Tenn.1998).Throughits  p provisions,theActservesacrucialroleinpromotingaccountabilityingovernmentthroughpublic  \ oversightofgovernmentalactivities.Cf.Forsbergv.Hous.Auth.ofMiamiBeach,455So.2d373, H 378(Fla.1984)(statingthatthepurposeofFloridaspublicrecordsact,whichissimilarto 4 Tennessees, istopromotepublicawarenessandknowledgeofgovernmentalactionsinorderto   ensurethatgovernmentalofficialsandagenciesremainaccountabletothepeople).     Inidentifyingwhichrecordsmustbeopentopublicinspection,theActprovidesinpertinent  part, [A]llstate,countyandmunicipalrecords...shallatalltimes,duringbusinesshours,beopen  forpersonalinspectionbyanycitizenofTennessee,andthoseinchargeofsuchrecordsshallnot l refusesuchrightofinspectiontoanycitizen,unlessotherwiseprovidedbystatelaw.Tenn.Code X  Ann.107503(a)(1999andSupp.2001). #  5      ׀Littleguidanceisprovided,however,indefining D! preciselywhichrecordsare state,countyandmunicipalrecordsunderthisprovision.The 0"  definitionofpublicrecordsinPart3oftheAct,regardingthePublicRecordsCommission,provides #l! imperfectguidance,asthedefinitionsinthatpartdonotexpresslyapplytootherpartsoftheAct: $X" 8  Definitions.!Asusedinthispart,unlessthecontextotherwiserequires:%0!$   8  ....'#&   Ї8  (6) Publicrecordorrecordsor staterecordorrecordsmeansalldocuments,  papers,letters,maps,books,photographs,microfilms,electronicdataprocessingfiles  andoutput,films,soundrecordings,orothermaterial,regardlessofphysicalformor  characteristicsmadeorreceivedpursuanttolaworordinanceorinconnectionwith t thetransactionofofficialbusinessbyanygovernmentalagency.`   Tenn.CodeAnn.107301(1999andSupp.2001).Nevertheless,eventhisdefinitiondoesnot 8  identifywithprecisionhowcourtsshoulddeterminewhetheranygivenrecordhasbeen madeor $ t receivedpursuanttolaworordinanceorinconnectionwiththetransactionofofficialbusinessby  ` anygovernmentalagency. #  6        L    TheCourtofAppealshastakenarelativelynarrowapproachtowarddefiningwhoserecords $  shouldbeconsideredsubjecttotheAct.InMemphisPublishingCo.v.ShelbyCountyHealthCare   Corp.,thecourtaddressedwhethertheActallowedpublicaccesstopersonnelrecordsofanotfor   profitcorporationestablishedtooperatetheCityofMemphisHospital.799S.W.2d225,226(Tenn.   Ct.App.1990).ThecourtemphasizedthatthecorporationdidnotoriginateintheGeneral   Assembly,butinsteadhadbeenincorporatedundertheTennesseeGeneralCorporationAct.Id.at p 229. #  7      ׀Thus,becausethecorporationhadnotbeenestablishedasagovernmentalentitybylegislative \ determination,thecourtheldthatitcouldnotbeconsideredsubjecttotheActregardlessofitspublic H function,publicoversight,andpublicfunding.Id.at22829. 4   Inadditiontothe legislativedeterminationapproachsetforthinShelbyCountyHealth  \ CareCorp.,theCourtofAppealsalsohaslookedtoagencylawwhendeterminingwhetherrecords H shouldbeopentopublicscrutiny.InCreativeRestaurants,Inc.v.CityofMemphis,thecourt 4 addressedwhethertheActwouldallowpublicinspectionofcertainsubleasesinthepossessionof   aprivate,forprofitcorporationwhichwasinvolvedinan urbanrenewalprojectfortheCityof   Memphis.795S.W.2d672,673(Tenn.Ct.App.1990).Afteroutliningthecomplexcontractual  relationshipbetweenthecorporationandthecity,thecourtobservedthat [w]hilethepartieshave  beenplacedinthepostureoflessorandlesseeinsofaraslegalterminologyisconcerned,theyare   substantiallyinthepostureofprincipalandagent.Id.at678.Thisrelationship,thecourtheld,was l sufficientunderthecircumstancesofthecasetoestablishthesubleasesaspublicrecords.Id. #  8      ׀In   thecaseundersubmission,theCourtofAppealsappliedanagencyanalysissimilartothatusedin  CreativeRestaurants,Inc.toconcludethatCherokeewasanindependentcontractorandnotanagent  oftheState. t   Ourreviewofrelevantauthority,however,leadsustoconcludethatthelawofagencyisnot L  theidealvehiclefordeterminingwhetherrecordsinthepossessionofagivenprivateentityshould 8  besubjecttopublicscrutinyundertheAct.Thedifficultywiththeagencyanalysisarisesbecause $ t ofthegrowingtrendtowardprivatizationofgovernmentalfunctionsandservices.  `   Sincethe1980s,governmentalentitiesinvariouspartsofthenationhavelookedincreasingly  8  toprivatizationasapossiblesolutiontoperceivedproblemsofinefficiencyorexpenseinthe $  provisionofpublicservices.SeegenerallyCraigD.Feiser,ProtectingthePublicsRighttoKnow:   TheDebateOverPrivatizationandAccesstoGovernmentInformationUnderStateLaw,27Fla.St.   U.L.Rev.825,82527(2000).Intypicalprivatizationarrangements,thegovernment,througha   contractorsimilarvehicle,delegatestoaprivateentitytheresponsibilityforperformingafunction   formerlyperformedbythegovernmentitself. #  9      ׀ThearrangementbetweenCherokeeandtheStatein p thecaseundersubmissioninvolves [t]hemostcommonformofprivatization,calledcontracting \ out,[inwhich]thegovernmentcontractswithaprivateentitytoprovideaservicepreviously H performedbythegovernment,ortoprovideaservicefororonbehalfofagovernmententity.See 4 Feiser,supra,at829.  p   Scholarshavelongdebatedthemeritsofprivatizationpolicies.CompareJosephCaponio H andJanetGeffner,DoesPrivatizationAffectAccesstoGovernmentInformation?,5GovtInfo.Q. 4 147(1998)(describingprivatizationasanefficientmanagementtoolwhenusedproperly);with   ShirleyL.Mays,PrivatizationofMunicipalServices:AContagionintheBodyPolitic,34Duq.L.   Rev.41(1995)(assertingthat governmentscannotturnoveroperationofessentialgovernment  servicestoprivatecompanieswithoutabusingthetrustofitscitizensandputtingthematrisk).  Onlyrecently,however,hasattentionfocuseduponthewaysinwhichpublicaccesstoinformation  maybeobstructedwhengovernmentalfunctionsaretransferredtotheprivatesector.Asone l commentatorstates, Privatizationmaybedesirableinitself,butitshouldnotcomewithout... X  leavingpublicaccountabilityintact.Notonlyshouldthepublicbeabletomonitortheprivate D! companysactivities,butthemonitoringshouldbeonthesametermsaswhenthepublicagencywas 0"  theinformationvendor.Feiser,supra,at833.Othersnotethatthegovernmentmay,intentionally #l! orunintentionally,shieldrecordsfromthepublicbyshiftingthemtoprivateentities.Indeed,by $X" maintainingandcontrollingpreviouslypublicrecords,privatecompaniesmaycontrolpublicaccess $D # tosuchrecordsinwaysthatare atoddswiththeverypurposeofpublicrecordslaws.Matthew %0!$ BunkerandCharlesDavis,PrivatizedGovernmentFunctionsandFreedomofInformation:Public &"% AccountabilityinanAgeofPrivateGovernance,75JournalismandMassComm.Q.464,46468  (1998).    Numerousotherjurisdictionshaveexaminedhowpublicrecordslawsshouldapplyina t climateofincreasedprivatizationtoensurethatpublicaccess,andhencegovernmental ` accountability,ispreserved.Onewidelyusedapproach,pioneeredbytheConnecticutSupreme L  Court,balancesseveralfactorstodeterminewhetheragivenprivateentitysrecordsshouldbeopen 8  topublicinspection.See,e.g.,ConnecticutHumaneSocyv.FreedomofInfo.Commn,591A.2d $ t 395,397(Conn.1991).InConnecticutHumaneSociety,thecourtdefinedtheterm publicagency  ` instatepublicrecordslaws #  10      ׀toincludeaprivateentity thatisthefunctionalequivalentofapublic  L  entity.Id.at39697.Thecourtstated:  8  8  Indeterminingwhetheranentityisthefunctionalequivalentofapublicagency,we   considerthefollowingcriteria:(1)whethertheentityperformsagovernmental   function;(2)thelevelofgovernmentfunding;(3)theextentofgovernment   involvementorregulation;and(4)whethertheentitywascreatedbythegovernment.    Id.at397(internalquotationsomitted).Thecourtstressedthatnosinglefactorwasdispositiveto \ thiscasebycaseanalysis,assertingthat [i]nlightofthemyriadoforganizationalarrangementsthat H maybeconfronted,underthefunctionalequivalencyapproach,eachnewarrangementmustbe 4 examinedanewandinitsowncontext.Id.(quotingWashingtonResearchProject,Inc.v.  p DepartmentofHealth,Educ.&Welfare,504F.2d238,24546(D.C.Cir.1974)).  \   AsimilaranalysishasbeenappliedinMaryland.SeeAbellPublgCo.v.Mezzanote,464 4 A.2d1068,1074(Md.1983).InMezzanote,theCourtofAppealsofMarylandheldthatanonprofit   insuranceguarantyassociationwassubjecttoMarylandspublicrecordsstatute,whoseterms   encompassedrecordsmadeby anybranchoftheStategovernment,includingthelegislative,  judicial,andexecutivebranches,byanybranchofapoliticalsubdivision,andbyD  anyagencyor  instrumentalityofthe_StateDidan  ݀orapoliticalsubdivision.Id.at1069(quotingMd.Code,Art.76A  1(b)(emphasisadded)).( #  11      ׀Inreachingitsconclusion,thecourtrejectedthecontentionthatanentity l wassubjecttopublicrecordslawsonlyifitwereundercompletecontrolbythestate.Id.at1072. X  Rather,thecourtproposed anumberoffactorstodecidewhethertheprivateentitysrecords D! shouldbesubjecttopublicaccess,includingthepublicpurposeoftheprivateentity,the degreeof 0"  controlexercisedbythegovernmentovertheentity,whethertheentitywascreatedbystatute,and  whethertheentitywasimmunefromtortliability.Id.at107274.Whilethelanguageusedby  MarylandsCourtofAppealswasnotidenticaltothatoftheConnecticutSupremeCourt,itsinquiry,  inessence,amountedtothesame functionalequivalencyanalysis. t   Otherstates,includingNorthCarolina,Oregon,Kansas,andFlorida,alsohaveused L  comparableapproachesindecidingwhetherpublicrecordsstatutesshouldapplytocertainprivate 8  entitiesperforminggovernmentfunctions.SeeNewsandObserver_Publg_ԀCo.v.WakeCounty $ t Hosp.Sys.,Inc.,284S.E.2d542,54449(N.C.Ct.App.1981);Marksv.McKenzieHighSchool  ` FactFindingTeam,878P.2d417,42426(Or.1994);Kan.Op._Atty_ԀGen.93130(1993),available  L  at1993Kan.AGLEXIS116;seealsoNewsandSunSentinelCo.v.Schwab,Twitty&Hanser  8  ArchitecturalGroup,596So.2d1029,1031(Fla.1992);Feiser,supra,83744(discussingthese $  cases). #  12      ׀FederalcourtsapplyingtheFreedomofInformationActalsohavefavorablydiscussedthe   functionalequivalencyanalysis.SeeRy.LaborExecutives_Assn_Ԁv.Consol.RailCorp.,580F.   Supp777,77879(D.D.C.1984).     Ourreviewofauthorityfromotherjurisdictionspersuadesusthatthefunctionalequivalency p approachdescribedaboveprovidesasuperiormeansforapplyingpublicrecordslawstoprivate \ entitieswhichperform contractedoutgovernmentalservices.Asthefactsofthesecases H demonstrate,privateentitiesthat_Ԁperformpublicservicesonbehalfofagovernmentoftendosoas 4 independentcontractors.Nonetheless,thepublicsfundamentalrighttoscrutinizetheperformance  p ofpublicservicesandtheexpenditureofpublicfundsshouldnotbesubvertedbygovernmentorby  \ privateentitymerelybecausepublicdutieshavebeendelegatedtoanindependentcontractor.When H aprivateentitysrelationshipwiththegovernmentissoextensivethattheentityservesasthe 4 functionalequivalentofagovernmentalagency,theaccountabilitycreatedbypublicoversight   shouldbepreserved.        Consequently,inlightofourdutytoconstruetheTennesseePublicRecordsActliberallyin  favorof thefullestpossiblepublicaccesstopublicrecords, #  13      ׀wefollowtheConnecticutSupreme   Courtandinterpretrecords madeorreceived...inconnectionwiththetransactionofofficial  businessbyanygovernmentalagencytoincludethoserecordsinthehandsofanyprivateentity t whichoperatesasthefunctionalequivalentofagovernmentalagency.T #  14      ׀Inmakingthis ` determination,welooktothetotalityofthecircumstancesineachgivencase,andnosinglefactor L  willbe_dispositive_.Thecornerstoneofthisanalysis,ofcourse,iswhetherandtowhatextentthe 8  entityperformsagovernmentalorpublicfunction,forweintendbyourholdingtoensurethata $ t governmentalagencycannot,intentionallyorunintentionally,avoiditsdisclosureobligationsunder  ` theActbycontractuallydelegatingitsresponsibilitiestoaprivateentity.Beyondthisconsideration,  L  additionalfactorsrelevanttotheanalysisinclude,butarenotlimitedto,(1)thelevelofgovernment  8  fundingoftheentity;(2)theextentofgovernmentinvolvementwith,regulationof,orcontrolover $  theentity;and(3)whethertheentitywascreatedbyanactofthelegislatureorpreviouslydetermined   bylawtobeopentopublicaccess.     Wecautionthatourholdingclearlyisnotintendedtoallowpublicaccesstotherecordsof   everyprivateentitywhichprovidesanyspecific,contractedforservicestogovernmentalagencies. p Aprivatebusinessdoesnotopenitsrecordstopublicscrutinymerelybydoingbusinesswith,or \ performingservicesonbehalfof,stateormunicipalgovernment.Butwhenanentityassumes H responsibilityforprovidingpublicfunctionstosuchanextentthatitbecomesthefunctional 4 equivalentofagovernmentalagency,theTennesseePublicRecordsActguaranteesthattheentity  p isheldaccountabletothepublicforitsperformanceofthosefunctions.  \   Havingsetforththe functionalequivalencytest,wenextmustapplythatanalysistothe 4 caseundersubmission.Mostcritically,theservicesperformedbyCherokee,providingchildcare   servicesforindigentfamiliesandsupervisingchildcareplacementsunderTDHSguidelines,were   undeniablypublicinnature.Indeed,therecordreflectsthatTDHSdirectlyperformedtheseservices  priortoenteringintothecontractswithCherokee.Cherokeesinvolvementinprovidingthese  serviceswasextensive,withallofitsemployeesperformingservicesunderthecontractswithTDHS.  Indeed,becauseCherokeesbusinessactivitieswere,byitscharter,dedicatedexclusivelytothe l servicingoftheTDHScontracts,allofitsrecordsnecessarilyrelatetoitsstatebusiness.Moreover, X  Cherokeesoperationwasfinancedwithpublicfunds(overninetyninepercentofitsfundingcame D! fromgovernmentalsources).Inaddition,althoughTDHSdidnotexercisecompletecontrolor 0"  supervisionoverCherokee,asignificantlevelofgovernmentalcontrolandoversightisevidenced #l! bytheprovisionsinthe1992and1999contractsrequiringadvanceStateapprovalof allowable $X" costsunderthecontractsandtheprovisionsinallthreecontractsauthorizingStateauditsof $D # Cherokeesactivities.Whileitistruethat:(1)Cherokeewasprivatelyincorporatedratherthan %0!$ createdbythelegislature;(2)thecontractsdisavowedanyagencyrelationshipbetweenCherokee &"% andtheState;and(3)thepartiesassertedthattheStateincurrednotortliabilityforCherokees  activities,theseconsiderationsareoutweighedbytheotherfactorslistedabove.Accordingly,we  concludethatCherokeeservedasthefunctionalequivalentofagovernmentalagency,andsowe  holdthattherecordsinCherokeespossessionaresubjecttopublicaccesspursuanttothetermsof t theTennesseePublicRecordsAct.Itfollows,furthermore,thattheComptrollermayhavethesame ` accessasthepublictoCherokeesrecordsunderthetermsoftheAct.Ourholdingrendersit L  unnecessaryforustoreachtheotherissuesraisedbytheparties,includingtheconstitutionalityof 8  Chapter960,andweexpressnoopiniononthoseissues. #  15       $ t   IV.Conclusion  L    Fortheforegoingreasons,weholdthatCherokeesstatusasthefunctionalequivalentofa $  governmentalagencyissufficienttoplaceitwithinthescopeoftheTennesseePublicRecordsAct.   Accordingly,recordsinCherokeespossessionshallbesubjecttoinspectionbyMPCandthe   ComptrollerpursuanttothetermsoftheAct,andweremandthecausetothetrialcourtforfurther   proceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.CostsonappealaretaxedtoCherokeeChildren&Family   Services,Inc.,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. p      `     h     ___________________________________  p    `     h     ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,JUSTICE