Request By:
IN RE: Mark Chellgren/Office of the Governor
Opinion
Opinion By: Chris Gorman, Attorney General; Amye B. Majors, Assistant Attorney General
OPEN RECORDS DECISION
This matter comes to the Attorney General on appeal from the Governor's Office's denial of Mr. Mark Chellgren's January 19, 1993, request to inspect "a listing of each of Gov. Brereton Jones' official visits outside of Frankfort during the calendar year of 1992," or in the alternative, "a compilation of his daily schedule" for the year noting each official visit . . . ." Mr. Chellgren is a correspondent for the Associated Press, and his request was made under the Kentucky Open Records Act.
In a letter dated January 21, 1993, Mr. J. Patrick Abell denied Mr. Chellgren's request. Relying on KRS 61.878(1)(a), he argued that Governor Jones' schedule "is a mixture of family, social and public events, it being impossible to schedule his public events without keeping track of his private schedule." It was his position that disclosure of the Governor's schedule would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. In addition, Mr. Abell maintained that the schedule is a preliminary document, within the meaning of KRS 61.878(1)(h), "in that unforeseeable circumstances often require last minute cancellations of events that appear on the schedule." In support of his position, he cited OAG 78-626 in which this Office held that the calendar of the Mayor of the City of Louisville was exempt from public inspection under KRS 61.878(1)(a), (h), and (i).
In his letter of appeal to this Office, Mr. Chellgren states that he does not wish to inspect the Governor's schedule of private appointments, and that therefore no privacy interests are implicated. In his view, any material which is not subject to disclosure must be excised from the schedule to permit inspection. With respect to Mr. Abell's assertion that the schedule is a preliminary document, Mr. Chellgren expresses the belief that this argument is "simply absurd." He urges this Office to issue an opinion consistent with these views.
In 93-ORD-25, this Office held that a public official's schedule is akin to a workpaper or preliminary draft or note. Although it records the official's activities, it does not represent final action of the official's office. We therefore concluded that unless the schedule is incorporated into, or becomes a part of, final action of the public official's office, it is excluded from inspection under KRS 61.878(1)(h). In so holding, we reaffirmed OAG 78-626 and OAG 84-342.
We believe 93-ORD-25, a copy of which is attached, is dispositive of the present appeal. The Office of the Governor properly withheld the requested document under KRS 61.878(1)(h).
Mr. Chellgren may challenge this decision by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882.