Request By:
Gayle Johnson
Assistant Superintendent
Oldham County Board of Education
P.O. Box 207
LaGrange, Kentucky 40031
Opinion
Opinion By: FREDERIC J. COWAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL; Gerard R. Gerhard, Assistant Attorney General
By letter of December 12, 1989, Jon L. Fleischaker, as counsel for the Courier-Journal and Louisville Times Company, has appealed to this office regarding what apparently was your denial of inspection of records of the Oldham County Board of Education, setting forth certain salary information for Mr. C. David Phelps. Mr. Phelps apparently worked as a teacher in the the Oldham County Schools from about 1977 to 1987. Courier-Journal education writer Holly Holland, by request dated December 4, 1989, had asked for the beginning and ending salaries for Mr. Phelps.
KRS 61.880(2) provides, in substance and in part, that the Attorney General shall, upon request of one whose request to inspect a public record has been denied, issue a written opinion stating whether the denying agency acted consistent with Open Records provisions.
FINDINGS IN BRIEF
The Oldham County Board of Education failed to act consistent with Open Records provisions by failing to make a written response stating the specific basis of its denial of inspection of records reflecting exact beginning and ending salary payments to a teacher, and in refusing to allow inspection of such records.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
By request dated December 4, 1989, Courier-Journal education writer Holly Holland indicated that, under Kentucky Open Records Law, she was seeking the beginning and ending salaries for C. David Phelps, who started working for the Oldham County Schools in 1977, and quit after the 1987-88 school year.
The Courier-Journal's appeal indicates, in part and in substance, that you furnished a "general salary schedule" for the years in question, but refused to permit inspection of records showing specific beginning and ending salary amounts paid to Mr. Phelps.
OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
KRS 61.880(1) provides, in substance and in part, that a public agency, upon receiving a request to inspect public records, shall determine within three working days whether to comply with the request. The agency is to notify the requester, within that three day period, of its decision.
If an agency denies, in whole or in part, inspection of a record, its response must include a statement of the specific exception, among those set forth in KRS 61.878, authorizing withholding of the record, together with a brief explanation of how the exception applies to the record withheld.
A copy of the written response denying inspection is to be forwarded immediately by the agency to the Attorney General. KRS 61.880(2).
In response to a reporter's request, you apparently provided a general salary schedule for teachers, but refused to permit inspection of records which might reveal specific amounts paid to a teacher.
This office has long held, interpreting KRS 61.878(1)(a), that disclosure of salaries of public employees did not constitute an unwarranted invasion of their personal privacy. We noted that when records containing salary information also contained personal information, the personal information (information disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy) could be separated from the confidential information (citing KRS 61.878(4)). See OAG 76-717. And see OAG 77-723, which stated, in part, that the public's entitlement to know the salary of a state employee applies equally to all public employees.
In OAG 78-837 (copy attached), we found that a "payroll list" for the Jefferson County Public Schools was subject to inspection, but that private information contained thereon could be withheld.
Amounts paid from public coffers are perhaps uniquely of public concern. We believe the public is entitled to inspect records documenting exact amounts paid from public monies, to include amounts paid for items, or for salaries, etc. Specific sums paid in salary from public monies to a teacher in the public schools fall within such purview, and are, in our view, subject to inspection by the public, and, it follows, by the media. Disclosure of such payments do not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of KRS 61.878(1)(a).
We cannot determine that a written statement of denial consistent with KRS 61.880(1) was issued by you, in denying inspection of records reflecting actual beginning and ending payments from public coffers to Mr. Phelps.
The Oldham County Board of Education failed to act consistent with KRS 61.870 to 61.884 by failing to issue a written denial of inspection as called for by KRS 61.880(1), and by denying inspection of records that are subject to inspection.
The Oldham County Board of Education should promptly arrange with Ms. Holland for her inspection of records indicating exact beginning and ending salary payments to Mr. Phelps. If some information contained upon such records (e.g., social security number, home address, telephone number, tax withholdings, etc.) is deemed confidential, the Board may supply a copy of the records upon which such confidential information does not appear.
Alternatively, in keeping with KRS 61.878(4), the Board may prepare and make available for Ms. Holland's inspection, a record reflecting the information requested, i.e., a statement of the beginning and ending salary actually paid to Mr. Phelps.
The Oldham County Board of Education 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 Mr. Jon L. Fleischaker, Esq., counsel for the Courier-Journal and Louisville Times Company.