Request By:
Mr. James Gary, Mayor
City of Brownsboro Village
314 Lotis Way
Louisville, Kentucky 40207
Opinion
Opinion By: David L. Armstrong, Attorney General; Thomas R. Emerson, Assistant Attorney General
Mr. Norbert J. Fante, Sr. has appealed to the Attorney General pursuant to KRS 61.880 your handling of and the city's handling of his requests to inspect various records and documents.
Mr. Fante has furnished this office with a copy of a letter dated August 11, 1987, addressed to you and the four city commissioners. He states that a copy of this letter was presented to you, a city commissioner and the city clerk at the meeting of the city commission on August 11, 1987, and copies of the letter were also mailed to the other three commissioners on August 12, 1987. The letter in question makes requests for various documents and records, the requests being set forth in six numerical paragraphs.
In a letter to this office, dated August 26, 1987, Mr. Fante maintains that you and the city have violated the provisions of the Open Records Act. Not only have you not furnished him with the records and documents he requested but you never replied to his letter of August 11, 1987.
OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Since it appears from the information and material made available to this office that you and various other city officials did receive a copy of Mr. Fante's letter of August 11, 1987, you and the city have violated the provisions of KRS 61.880(1), a section of the Open Records Act (KRS 61.870 to KRS 61.884), which reads 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 (3) 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 supplied).
Thus, the public agency (the city in this situation) is mandatorily required to notify the requesting party of its decision in writing within three days after the receipt of the letter requesting to inspect and copy records. The written notice should advise the requesting party that the records in question will be made available for inspection or it should set forth specific reasons, citing the particular exception to public inspection upon which it is relying, why the records cannot be inspected. It is a violation of the Open Records
Act, specifically KRS 61.880(1), when no written response is made by the public agency within the specified time period to a request to inspect public records. See OAG 86-86, OAG 86-75, and OAG 86-20, copies of which are enclosed.
It is, therefore, the opinion of the Attorney General that you and the city have violated the Open Records Act, specifically KRS 61.880(1), by your refusal to respond in writing to the request to inspect public records. You not only did not respond within the statutorily imposed time frame but you apparently have not responded at all. You and the city should immediately advise the requesting party in writing whether he may inspect the records in question and if you deny his request you must set forth the statutorily authorized exception to public inspection upon which you are relying.
As required by statute a copy of this opinion is being sent to the requesting party, Mr. Norbert J. Fante, Sr. If you and the city disagree with this opinion or decide not to comply with the findings and conclusions expressed herein, you may initiate further proceedings in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5).