Opinion
Opinion By: Chris Gorman, Attorney General; Amye B. Majors, Assistant Attorney General
IN RE: Richard W. Richards/City of West Buechel
OPEN RECORDS DECISION
This matter comes to the Attorney General on appeal from the actions of the City of West Buechel relative to Mr. Richard W. Richards' December 10, 1992, request to inspect certain records in the City's custody, and an amended request submitted on December 15, 1992. Those records are identified as:
1. Employment applications for all city employees;
2. Salary histories for all city employees;
3. Contracts with attorneys employed by the City along with attorneys fees paid for the years 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992;
4. The City budget for the years 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992.
Mr. Richards' request was made under the Kentucky Open Records Act.
On behalf of the City of West Buechel, Ms. Patricia A. Taylor, City Clerk-Treasurer, responded to Mr. Richards' request in a letter dated December 16, 1992. In her response, she states:
Employment applications and salary histories of city employees are not subject to the Kentucky Open Records Act.
Jim Highfield is the attorney who defended the City of West Buechel against law suits brought against the city. His phone number is (502) 585-2233.
The City budget was and has to be, by law, recorded in the newspaper, and I am sure this information can be made available to you immediately by the Courier- Journal, as I will require ten (10) working days from the date of this letter to make this information available to you, but, [sic] I will try to accommodate your request, if you choose, by this time.
Ms. Taylor did not include a statement of the specific exception authorizing denial, nor did she provide a brief explanation of how the exception applies to the records withheld.
We are asked to determine if the City of West Buechel violated the Open Records Law in responding to Mr. Richards' open records request. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the City's actions constitute a violation of that law.
This Office has recently recognized that employment applications of public employees are public records, and must be made available for inspection upon request. OAG 89-90; OAG 91-176; OAG 91-155; OAG 92-59. Of course, an agency may elect to mask information contained on the application which is of a purely personal character, including the employee's home address, social security number, marital status, and medical information. The City of West Buechel erred in failing to release these documents.
Similarly, the City erred in failing to release the salaries of its employees. The Attorney General has consistently recognized that the public is entitled to know what its servants are being paid. OAG 76-717; OAG 87-37; OAG 87-84; OAG 91-48; OAG 91-81. Thus, in OAG 87-37, at p. 4, this Office held that "the public has a right to know about that which is related to the governmental employee's public and work related activities. . . ." This includes his or her name, position, work station, and salary. The City must promptly release its employees' salary records along with their employment applications.
This Office has also repeatedly held that the public is entitled to review the contracts, vouchers, and other business records of a public agency, including records of payments made to attorneys, and bills and statements submitted to an agency by its attorneys. OAG 82-169; OAG 85-91; OAG 92-14; OAG 92-92. The City is not relieved of its obligation to release these records by referring Mr. Richards to its attorney, Mr. Highfield. Instead, it must compile the requested records, and make them available for his inspection.
Finally, this Office has consistently taken the position that a City budget is a public record, and is thus open to public inspection. OAG 82-91; OAG 84-217. Although Ms. Taylor acknowledged this principle, she advised Mr. Richards to contact The Courier-Journal in order to immediately obtain a copy. We believe this action was improper under the Open Records Law. The Courier-Journal is not the official custodian of the City of West Buechel's budget. Again, the City cannot relieve itself of its obligations under the Open Records Law by referring the requester to another person or entity, public or private, if the City is the custodian of the requested record. The City is directed to immediately release its budget for the years 1988 through 1992.
In closing, we must note that the City's response was also procedurally deficient. KRS 61.880(1) provides:
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 action.
Ms. Taylor did not include a statement of the specific exception(s) authorizing nondisclosure, or provide a brief explanation of how the exception(s) applies to the records withheld. In our view, there is no exception authorizing the City's actions. Nevertheless, we urge the City to review the cited provision to insure that future responses conform to the Open Records Act.
The City of West Buechel may challenge this decision by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882.