Request By:
[NO REQUESTBY IN ORIGINAL]
Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
This matter comes to the Attorney General on appeal from the Workforce Development Cabinet, Division of Unemployment Insurance's responses to Carl Dabney's two requests, dated December 1, 1997, seeking certain statistical information from the Cabinet, under the Freedom of Information Law.
In the first request, Mr. Dabney requested the following statistical information:
From January 1, 1994 to August 1, 1997, please provide the following:
By letter dated December 4, 1997, Ron Holland, Director, Division of Unemployment Insurance, with the Cabinet, responded to Mr. Dabney's first request, stating:
First, you requested the "Number of 'Good Cause' cases involving William T. Fields as a hearing referee and their outcome (for or against employer)." Division records reflect that Mr. Fields conducted five (5) hearings during 1994. He conducted one hearing during 1995. Mr. Fields retired effective July 31, 1995. Without specific information, i.e. the names of the former employees involved in each of these cases, the issues and the outcome of those proceedings cannot be determined.
Secondly, you requested the "Number of 'Good Cause' cases involving William T. Fields as a representative for the employer and the name of the hearing referee and their outcome (for or against employer)." The Division does not keep statistical records as to who represents the parties at a hearing.
Lastly, you requested the "Number of 'Good Cause' cases involving former D.H.L. Company employees and their outcome (for or against employer)." With certain exceptions, such as a mass layoff, the Division does not keep statistical records as to the number of claims filed against a particular employer.
In his second request, Mr. Dabney requested the following statistical information:
In addition to the information previously requested, could you also provide the number of cases involving John Rose as a Hearing Referee and their outcome (for or against employer) for the time frame from January 1, 1996 - August 1, 1997.
By letter dated December 5, 1997, Mr. Holland, responded to Mr. Dabney's second request, stating:
You requested "the number of cases involving John Rose as a hearing referee and their outcome (for or against employer) for the time from January 1, 1996, through August 1, 1997." During the calendar year 1996 Mr. Rose heard 564 cases. From January through August of 1997 he heard 380 cases. Without specific information, i.e. the names of the former employees involved in those cases, the issues and the outcome of those proceedings cannot be determined.
We are asked to determine whether the Cabinet's responses were consistent with the Open Records Act. For the reasons which follow, we conclude that the responses were consistent with the Act.
The Cabinet provided Mr. Dabney with the statistical information he requested relative to the number of cases, during the designated time frames, involving Mr. Fields and Mr. Rose as hearing referees. However, the Cabinet explained that, without specific information, such as the names of the former employees involved, it could not provide Mr. Dabney with information as to the issues and outcome of the cases involving the two hearing referees.
This office has consistently recognized that a request for information, as opposed to a request for specific and reasonably identified documents, need not be honored under the Open Records Act. OAG 90-100. Moreover, in expanding on this notion that open records provisions address only inspection of reasonably identified records, we have held that the Act does not require public agencies or officials to provide or compile specific information to conform to the parameters of a specific request. 96-ORD-12. Thus, we conclude the Cabinet's response, that it could not provide records relating to the outcome of certain cases unless it was provided with specific information identifying the cases, was consistent with the Open Records Act and prior decisions of this office.
In its response to Mr. Dabney's request for the number of cases involving Mr. Fields as a representative for the employer, the Cabinet indicated that it did not keep statistical records as to who represents the parties at a hearing. Likewise, in response to Mr. Dabney's request for the number of cases involving former D.H.L. Company employees and their outcome, the Cabinet also indicated that it did not keep statistical records as to the claims filed against a particular employer.
In OAG 76-375 we said it is not necessary for an agency to make a list of items from its records if such a list does not already exist. When an agency has compiled statistics, the documents containing the statistics should be made available for public inspection and copying; but if no such compilation has been made, a requester cannot require the agency to make one. It is for the agency to decide if and when to create a body of statistical data.
Thus, if no such compilation of statistical information has been made, an agency is not required to make one to meet the parameters of a particular request. Accordingly, it is the decision of this office that the Cabinet properly denied the request for statistical information which it did not maintain.
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