Request By:
[NO REQUESTBY IN ORIGINAL]
Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Marshall County Judge/Executive, Mike Miller, properly responded to Randy Skaggs's January 5, 1998, request for access to records and information pertaining to Marshall County's compliance with Kentucky's dog laws. For the reasons that follow, we find that the County Judge/Executive properly notified Mr. Skaggs that copies of the records he requested will be sent to him upon prepayment of reasonable copying charges or are available for inspection at the office of the County Judge/Executive. We further find that although he was not statutorily obligated to do so, Judge Miller furnished Mr. Skaggs with narrative answers to his requests for information. We therefore find no error in the Marshall County Judge/Executive's response.
KRS 61.874(3) authorizes public agencies to "prescribe a reasonable fee for making copies of nonexempt public records. . . which shall not exceed the actual cost of reproduction, including the costs of the media and any mechanical processing cost incurred by the public agency, but not including the cost of staff required." If the requester resides outside of the county in which the records are located, precisely describes the records, and the records are readily available within the public agency, the agency must mail copies upon request. The agency may, however, require advance payment of the prescribed fee, including postage. KRS 61.872(3)(b); KRS 61.874(1). Judge Miller therefore properly advised Mr. Skaggs that copies of all existing records identified in his request, consisting of contracts, records of financial compensation, expenditures, photographs of dog pound, dog control ordinances, and telephone listings, would be mailed to him upon prepayment of reasonable copying charges.
The remainder of Mr. Skaggs's request can be characterized as a request for information. With respect to such requests, this office has observed:
[When the request] is one for information , rather than to inspect records , and thus does not technically conform to Open Records provisions, we believe the proper response . . . [is] to promptly respond in writing to the request. [The response should state] that while Open Records provisions [do] not require a public agency to compile information, records that might yield the information sought [will] be made available for inspection during normal office hours. . . .
OAG 90-19, p. 3. Although the Marshall County Judge/Executive apparently failed to respond to Mr. Skaggs's original request, he voluntarily compiled the information Mr. Skaggs sought, and furnished it to him after receiving this office's notification of receipt of open records appeal. In addition, he extended an offer to Mr. Skaggs to conduct an on-site inspection of the records if he wished to compile the information for himself. With the exception of the initial procedural violation of the Open Records Act, we find that the Marshall County Judge/Executive's actions were consistent with the Act.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.