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 Allen County Judge/Executive, Bill Minix, violated the Open Records Act in responding to Randy Skaggs's January 5, 1998, request for access to records and information pertaining to Allen County's compliance with Kentucky's dog laws. For the reasons that follow, we find that the County Judge/Executive properly furnished Mr. Skaggs with copies of the records identified in his request. We further find that although Judge Minix correctly asserted that he was not required to compile information or create records in order to satisfy Mr. Skaggs's request for information, he should have issued a response to Mr. Skaggs advising him that records which might yield the information sought were available for inspection during normal office hours.
Mr. Skaggs framed his request as follows:
I would like the following information from you: (1) a. name of dog warden, b. dog warden's financial compensation, c. is dog warden's job a full-time or part-time position, d. does the dog warden have a second job and, if so, who does he work for, e. is dog warden's phone number listed in the local phone book; (2) a. location of dog pound, b. description of dog pound, c. does the county own or contract for the services of a dog pound; d. if privately owned, the name, address and telephone number of owner or manager; e. if owned by the county, is the pound operated by a county employee, private individual or non-profit organization or humane society - please list their name, address and telephone number, f. hours of operation, g. is dog pound's telephone number listed in the local telephone book, h. if the county has a dog warden but no dog pound, where are the unwanted dogs being taken and what is happening to them - please remit independent verification, i. if the county has neither dog warden nor dog pound, is it because the fiscal court feels that it must not enforce all of Kentucky's laws but, only the ones it so chooses; (3) a. method of euthanasia utilized by dog pound (if by injection or gas, provide receipts and the name of the medical supply house from which procured); b. does a trained technician or veterinarian perform the euthanasia; (4) a. number of stray dogs picked up each month throughout the county, for each of the last twelve months, b. number of dogs picked up from or belonging to private individuals each month, for each of the last twelve months; (5) photostatic copies of contracts, financial compensation, expenditures, photographs of dog pound, copies of dog control ordinances, photostatic copies of telephone listings; (6) a. total amount of money expended by the county fiscal court for the last two years for dog warden and dog pound.
Mr. Skaggs's request was therefore by in large a request for information as opposed to records.
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, citing OAG 86-75. Thus, although Judge Minix was correct in his assertion that Allen County was not required to compile information or create records to satisfy Mr. Skaggs's request, the better response would have been to notify the requester that records containing the information he seeks were available for inspection.
In all other material respects, we find that the Allen County Judge/Executive complied with the Open Records Act by furnishing Mr. Skaggs with copies of records identified in part 5 of his request, and advising him if no records exist satisfying a particular records request.
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.