Request By:
Mr. Harold Holbrook
Superintendent
Carter County Schools
P.O. Box 517
Grayson, Kentucky 41143
Opinion
Opinion By: David L. Armstrong, Attorney General; Thomas R. Emerson, Assistant Attorney General
Ms. Frances Meenach has appealed to the Attorney General pursuant to KRS 61.880 your handling of and the apparent denial of her requests to obtain various items of "public information" from the county school system.
In her recent letter of appeal to this office Ms. Meenach maintains that on December 2, 1986, she submitted a written request to you asking for various items of information pertaining to real estate and automobile purchases by the county board of education. She further states that on December 4, 1986, she asked you if this information had been obtained and you said the requests had been turned over to Ms. Wilma Mobley, the treasurer. Ms. Meenach contacted Ms. Mobley on December 8, 1986, and was advised that the information had not been gathered and it was not known when it would be made available.
Ms. Meenach also maintains that on July 17, 1986, and on August 27, 1986, she requested in writing from you a copy of the audit and complete financial statement for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1986. Copies of the audit were allegedly presented to each member of the school board on December 4, 1986, and on November 10, 1986, Ms. Mobley said she was preparing a financial statement for another person.
Since apparently neither you nor anyone associated with the school board and the county school system have responded in writing to the written requests of Ms. Meenach, as briefly outlined above, this office cannot comment on whether you could have properly withheld from public inspection any of the documents with which she is concerned.
OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Since the Open Records Act (KRS 61.870 to KRS 61.884) deals with the inspection and copying of public records, Ms. Meenach, technically, should have requested to inspect documents which would have revealed what she was trying to ascertain. There is, as we said in OAG 81-333, copy enclosed, a difference between a request for information and a request to inspect records.
In this particular situation, however, Ms. Meenach's requests for information were sufficiently clear and precise to have enabled the school system and the appropriate persons associated with the system to respond within the statutorily mandated time span, assuming that the requests were actually received. Thus this matter is being considered as a proceeding governed by the terms and provisions of the Open Records Act. Requiring Ms. Meenach to restate her requests at this point would be a waste of everyone's time and would unnecessarily delay the disposition of her case.
On the assumption that you or someone associated with the school system received the written requests in question, you and the school system have not complied with the provisions of KRS 61.880(1), a section of the Open Records Act, which state as follows:
"Each public agency, upon any request for records made under KRS 61.870 to 61.884, shall determine within three (3) days, (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with the request and shall notify in writing the person making the request, within the three day period, of its decision. An agency response denying, in whole or in part, inspection of any record shall include a statement of the specific exception authorizing the withholding of the record and a brief explanation of how the exception applies to the record withheld. The response shall be issued by the official custodian or under his authority, and it shall constitute final agency action." (Emphasis added).
Thus, the public agency is mandatorily required to notify the requesting party of its decision in writing within three days. The notice should advise the requesting party that the records in question will be made available for inspection or set forth specific reasons why the records cannot be inspected. It is a failure to comply with the Open Records Law, specifically KRS 61.880(1), when no written response is made within the specified period to a request to inspect public records in the custody of a public agency. See OAG 85-120 and OAG 86-36, copies of which are enclosed.
It is, therefore, the opinion of the Attorney General that, if you received the requests, you have not acted in accordance with the requirements of the Open Records Act, specifically KRS 61.880(1), since you have not responded in writing and you have neither advised the requesting party that the records requested are available for inspection nor have you advised the requesting party the specific exception to public inspection you are relying upon in support of your decision to deny public inspection. You should immediately advise the requesting party in writing either that the records requested are available for inspection and copying or that they are not available for public inspection under a statutorily recognized exception to public inspection.
As required by statute a copy of this opinion is being sent to the requesting party, Ms. Frances Meenach. If you decide not to comply with the terms of this opinion, you may initiate further proceedings pursuant to KRS 61.880(5).