Request By:
Harriet L. Black
City Clerk
City of Russell Springs
P.O. Box 247
Russell Springs, Kentucky 42642
Opinion
Opinion By: Frederic J. Cowan, Attorney General; Gerard R. Gerhard, Assistant Attorney General
By letter of September 21, 1989, Mr. David F. Smith, has, in substance, appealed to this office regarding your September 21, 1989 response to his request of September 18, 1989, on behalf of his client, Mr. Dravo Flanagan, to inspect certain of the City's records.
FINDINGS IN BRIEF
The city acted consistent with Open Records provisions where it promptly responded in writing to request for broad categories of documents concerning generally described subjects, by indicating it would make records available for inspection that appeared to conform to the request, indicated it did not have certain lists requested, and directed the requestor to other agencies where records concerning subjects listed by requestor might be located.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
By letter of September 18, 1989, addressed to you as Russell Springs City Clerk, Mr. Smith, indicating he was asking on behalf of his client Mr. Dravo Flanagan, asked to inspect or copy the following, pursuant to Open Records provisions:
1. The line item budget of the city for the years 1985 through 1989, inclusive, plus the proposed budget, if any, for 1990.
2. All financial assets of the city whether held in the city's name for the years 1985 through 1989, inclusive.
3. A list of all city employees together with their salaries for the years 1985 through 1989, inclusive.
4. A list of all bank accounts owned or controlled by the city, together with all checkbooks, bank statements, deposit slips, and cancelled checks for same for the period 1985 through 1989, inclusive.
5. If not included in paragraph 4, above, the financial records showing money received by the city and the dispensement of same of each project for which the city received money other than city revenues, including, but not limited to the "Salem-Eli Water Project", the "Vegetable Processing Plant" , the "Russell Springs Downtown Revitalization Project", etc. for the years 1985 through 1989, inclusive, plus any documentation showing "Administrator's Fees" for the above.
6. A copy of the budget and contract for the current downtown sidewalk renovation project.
7. The contract for the recent electrical modifications to the city water works plant and the record of payment of same.
8. Whatever documents necessary to itemize and determine a total of all city revenues for the years 1985 to 1988, inclusive, and for 1989 to date.
You responded to Mr. Smith's request by letter of September 21, 1989, a copy of which was forwarded to this office. You indicated in part:
I find your request to be extremely broad, and to copy the thousands of documents which you asked for would certainly be disruptive to the operations of our office.
This office does have and will make available to you the following documents which appear to conform to your request:
1. Budget ordinances which were adopted by the city council.
2. Audits for the years 1985-89 which were adopted by the city council and which should contain much of the information you are seeking.
3. All assets held by the City of Russell Springs consist of vehicles which are duly in the County Clerk's office, deeds to properties, which are lodged in the County Clerk's office, and bank accounts. These items, with exception of the bank accounts, are of public record in the County Clerk's office and may be reviewed there.
This office does not have the following:
1. Lists requested in paragraphs three (3) and four (4) of your request.
2. A budget and contract for the current downtown sidewalk renovation project. With council approval, this project is being done in phases, and no vendor has been paid in excess of $ 7,500. There is no need to bid this project at the present time.
3. A contract for the electrical modifications to the water plant. The work was performed on an emergency basis in conformity with KRS 424.260.
These items are not available, and accordingly, we cannot supply them.
Regarding the "Administrator's Fees" to which you refer in Item five (5), the "Salem-Eli Water Project" was administered by Farmers Home Administration, and the "Vegetable Processing Plant" and "Main Street City Park Project" were administered by Lake Cumberland Area Development District. You will need to contact those agencies to obtain such information as you desire. The "Russell Spring Downtown Revitalization Project" contains no administrative fee.
OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
KRS 61.880(2) provides in part for the Attorney General to, upon request of one denied inspection of public records, issue a written opinion stating whether an agency ". . . acted consistent with provisions of KRS 61.870 to 61.884."
Mr. Smith's requests, set out in full text above (as to subjects regarding which records were sought), may be characterized as falling into one of several categories: (1) records that did not exist in the form requested (e.g., line item budget) , (2) lists that do not exist conforming to specified parameters, (3) overly broad and ambiguous requests (e.g. "all financial assets . . ." and "Whatever documents necessary to itemize and determine a total of all city revenues for the years . . ."), and (4) records that were in the custody of other agencies. Perhaps all the requests could be accurately characterized as blanket requests for information on a particular subject.
This office has previously said, in interpreting Open Records provisions, that blanket requests for information on a particular subject need not be honored. OAG 76-375. We have also said that one does not have a right under Open Records provisions to require that a particular list be made. Ibid. And see, KRS 61.872(5).
In general, Mr. Smith, in his appeal regarding your response, indicated that if particular records he sought didn't exist, he should be given access to those that would enable him to determine the information he wanted. That may be. But he must describe, with reasonable particularity, what records those are.
The purpose of the Open Records Law is not to provide "information" but to provide access to public records not exempted from inspection by law. OAG 79-547.
It is the opinion of this office that the City of Russell Springs acted consistent with provisions of KRS 61.870 to 61.884 in its September 21, 1989 response to Mr. Smith.
The city appears to have done the best it could given the breadth and character of the request it faced. It promptly advised, in writing, that it would make records apparently conforming to the request available for inspection, did not have others, and advised where certain records it did not have might be located.
To paraphrase our closing observations in OAG 76-375: City Governments and employees are servants of the people - but they are servants of all the people - not just those who may make extreme and unreasonable demands on their time. We believe one desiring that lists be made, or that broad categories of information be provided, must expend their own time digging the information out unless it has already been compiled.
Mr. David F. Smith may have a right pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) to appeal the findings of this opinion.
As required by statute, a copy of this opinion is being sent to its requestor, Mr. David F. Smith.