Request By:
Mr. Ed Burtner
City Manager, City of Winchester
City Hall
Winchester, Kentucky 40391
Opinion
Opinion By: Frederic J. Cowan, Attorney General; Thomas R. Emerson, Assistant Attorney General
Dennis Franklin Janes, Esq., on behalf of his client, Mr. Kenneth Blair, has appealed to the Attorney General pursuant to KRS 61.880 your denial of Mr. Blair's request to inspect various records in the custody of the city.
In his request to the city, dated July 3, 1989, Mr. Blair made the following request to inspect documents:
"I make a request under the Open Records Law for copies of all charges filed against the former Fire Chief, Robert N. Monroe, other than those filed November 30, 1983."
You replied on behalf of the city, to Mr. Blair in a letter dated July 6, 1989 and stated as follows:
"Your request is denied under KRS 61.878(A) in that the information contains information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. "
In his letter of appeal to this office Mr. Janes maintains that his client is entitled to inspect the documents in question.
OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
In support of your decision not to allow inspection of the requested documents you rely upon KRS 61.878(1)(a) which states that among those public records which may in the absence of a court order be excluded from public inspection are "Public records containing information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. "
In the case of
City of Louisville v. Courier-Journal and Louisville Times Company, Ky. App., 637 S.W.2d 658 (1982), the court dealt with the availability to the public under the Open Records Law of the internal investigative files of the city police department pertaining to an investigation of a city police officer. While the court did discuss some of the statutory exceptions to public inspection it never dealt with the privacy exception [KRS 61.878(1)(a)]. The court did state relative to the accessibility of the police department investigative files, at page 660 of its opinion:
"In summary, we hold that the investigative files of Internal Affairs are exempt from public inspection as preliminary under KRS 61.878(1)(g) and (h). This does not extend to the complaints which spawned the investigations. The public upon request has a right to know what complaints have been made and the final action taken by the Chief thereupon."
Thus, after the investigation of the charges and the rendering of its final decision relative to the disciplinary proceeding, the public entity (the city in this case) must, upon request, make available for public inspection the final decision made and entered by the city and the complaints which initially spawned the investigation. See OAG 87-32 and OAG 87-64, copies of which are enclosed. In connection with the making available of the complaint which initially spawned the investigation, the city may withhold from such a document the identity of the complainant pursuant to the provisions of KRS 61.878(1)(a). See OAG 85-126, copy enclosed.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Attorney General that the city violated the terms and provisions of the Open Records Act to the extent that it refused to make available for public inspection those complaints which spawned investigations or resulted in hearings involving the named chief of the fire department.
As required by statute, a copy of this opinion is being sent to the appealing party, Dennis Franklin Janes, Esq. If either or both of the parties to this appeal is dissatisfied with the opinion rendered, it may be challenged in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882.