As a follow-up to our follow-up to a May 2 post involving the University of Louisville's imposition of a $32.40 copying fee on a KSU student who —

on March 26 — requested an electronic copy of a precisely described contract as part of an assignment in a journalism class, we now have the "official" university explanation.

You may recall that the student received an invoice for the 24 page contract indicating that the university would release the contract to him upon receipt of a $2.40 copying fee and a $30 fee for staff time.

The open records law is abundantly clear that, although a public agency can require prepayment for copies of public records, it cannot include "the cost of staff required" in calculating a reasonable fee for copying records that are requested for a non-commercial purpose. KRS 61.874(3).

Since the student submitted his request, the semester has ended and the contract was, until yesterday, a hostage to the university's demands.

As his professor observed, "the learning objective wasn't what I had anticipated as an instructor, but it certainly was a learning experience."

On May 17, the professor finally reached UofL general counsel, Thomas Hoy.

She recounted to Mr. Hoy the many impediments she and her student encountered in penetrating the UofL bureaucracy, beginning with a phone number on the invoice that proved useless and ending, several calls later, with counsel's "triage assistant" who may or may not have passed along their message to Mr. Hoy.

In their May 17 conversation, Mr. Hoy "admitted mistakes were made in the handling" of the KSU student's request, and explained that the university's records custodian — who has held that position for several years — "presumes a commercial purpose when people request contracts."

That's the university's explanation?

Leaving aside the issue of a $2.40 charge for an electronic record that can be electronically transmitted, the university's explanation is legally unsupportable.

The open records law permits public agencies to impose a reasonable fee for copies of records requested for a commercial purpose that includes the cost of "staff required to produce a copy." KRS 61.874(4)(c)1.

"Commercial purpose" is defined at KRS 61.870(4)(a) as "any use by which by which the user expects a profit either through commission, salary, or fee" (with certain exclusions).

The law permits the records custodian to "require a certified statement from the requester stating the commercial purpose for which [the records] shall be used" at KRS 61.874(4)(b). It even permits the agency to require the requester to enter into a contract for the stated commercial use of the records.

It does not now, nor has it ever, permitted an agency or its records custodian to presumptively treat a request for a contract — or any other record for that matter — as a request made for a commercial purpose.

Here's a tip: Although the law does not require a requester to do so, he or she can avoid this problem — mostly — by stating in the written request, " I am not requesting this record for a commercial purpose" or " I do not intend to use this record for a commercial purpose."

Several days late, and several dollars "long," the university indicates it will release the requested contract at no charge.

Perhaps it's time for university officials to be "schooled" on the open records law.