Request By:
Ms. Jeannette Priebe, Director
Jefferson County Office of Personnel Management
517 Court Place, Room 301
Louisville, Kentucky 40202-3305
Opinion
Opinion By: David L. Armstrong, Attorney General; By: Cicely D. Jaracz, Assistant Attorney General
Mr. Jon L. Fleischaker, attorney, has appealed to the Attorney General pursuant to KRS 61.880 your denial of a request for inspection of public records made by Mr. Sheldon Shafer, a reporter for The Courier-Journal. Specifically, Mr. Shafer made a written request "to inspect all pay records and time sheets of Michael Shea and Steve Mobley between Jan. 1, 1981 and March 26, 1984."
You denied Mr. Shafer's request to inspect the time sheets based on KRS 61.878(1)(a) which exempts from public inspection those records "containing information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. " Additionally, you have determined that the time sheets, as part of employee personnel files, fall within office policy requiring written permission of the employee before access is granted.
In response to Mr. Shafer's request to inspect the payroll records of the two abovementioned employees, you stated that your office does not have custody of the payroll records. You further informed Mr. Shafer that his request should be directed to Mr. Robert Miller, Secretary of Finance.
OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
It is the opinion of the Attorney General that your denial of inspection of the time sheets was improper under the Open Records law.
Section 3 of the Kentucky Constitution provides that public emoluments or privileges may only be granted in consideration of public service. A public employee is therefore accountable to provide public service in exchange for the receipt of a wage payment from public funds. This accountability is established through the employee's time sheet. On that time sheet, the public employee verifies that he performed public service on certain hours and days, that he received compensatory time for public service worked above the standard workweek, and that he did not perform public service on certain hours and days and thereby forfeited vacation leave or sick leave. The time sheet thereby represents a confirmation of public funds expended for public service. It should therefore be available for public inspection under the Open Records law.
Your denial was premised on KRS 61.878(1)(a). It is our opinion that this exception is not applicable herein. KRS 61.878(1)(a) protects an individual against an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. This protection does not logically extend to time spent in public service which is compensated by public funds, and for which the public employee is accountable. In OAG 78-133 we held that KRS 61.878(1)(a) applies only to matters unrelated to the performance of public employment. The time a public employee spends in performance of public service which is compensated by public funds is directly related to public employment performance. As such, no personal privacy is involved and no protection against an unwarranted invasion thereof is required.
Mr. Shafer also requested to inspect the payroll records of Mr. Shea and Mr. Mobley. You did not deny this request, but instead directed Mr. Shafer to make his request to the proper custodian in conformance with KRS 61.872(3). Since you did not deny inspection, the issue of the propriety of allowing public inspection of these records is not now before us. Therefore, we will not consider this issue at this time.
Additionally, for your information, KRS 61.880(2) requires an agency response denying inspection of public records to be forwarded to the Attorney General.
It is therefore the opinion of the Attorney General that your denial of inspection of the time sheets of Mr. Shea and Mr. Mobley was improper under the Open Records law. As public employees, they are accountable to receive wages from public funds in exchange for time spent in public service. The KRS 61.878(1)(a) protection against an invasion of personal privacy is not applicable as no personal privacy is involved. You did not issue a denial as to inspection of the payroll records. Therefore we will pass on that issue.
As directed by statute, a copy of this opinion is being sent to the requestor. Should you decide not to comply with this opinion, you may initiate further proceedings pursuant to KRS 61.880(5).