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 Russellville Independent School District violated the Open Records Act in responding to Katherine Hart's request for information relating to teachers employed in the District. For the reasons that follow, we find that the District's response was, in all substantive respects, consistent with the provisions of the Act.
In her letter, dated February 17, 1999, but received on February 19, 1999, Ms. Hart requested that the Board provide her with the following information:
1. The names of every person that [sic] has taught in the Russellville Independent School District from 1984 through the 1998-1999 term[;]
2. Please designate the type of certification held when hired; if not certified, give date became certified, subjects certified for teaching, kind of degree held, years of teaching experience when hired, and the number of years employed by the Russellville Independent School District, beginning and ending salary.
Ms. Hart characterized her request as a "Kentucky Open Letter Request."
On February 23, 1999, 1 Superintendent Marshall H. Kemp responded to Ms. Hart's request, advising her as follows:
The statistics/data you have requested are not inclusively contained in any one comprehensive document. You are invited to view our board minutes and applicable records during regular office hours (8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) Monday through Friday in an area designated for this purpose. Most of the information you have requested is available on PSD (Professional Staff Data) forms; however, some of the information on these documents must be redacted out of confidentiality considerations.
Dissatisfied with the District's response, Ms. Hart initiated this appeal which followed shortly upon the heels of an identical appeal involving Ms. Hart and he Logan County Board of Education. 2
As in the earlier appeal involving Ms. Hart and the Logan County Board of Education, the Russellville Independent School District maintains that it has fully complied with the Open Records Act in responding to Ms. Hart's request. Again, we agree. To the extent that this office's decision in 99-ORD-33 is directly controlling, it is adopted in full and incorporated by reference. 3
Our review of the record on appeal discloses only one error on the part of the Russellville Independent School District. In his February 23 response, Superintendent Kemp advised Ms. Hart that "some of the information on [the Professional Staff Data forms] must be redacted out of confidentiality considerations." While it is almost certainly true that portions of the PSD forms can properly be redacted pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(a), relating to records containing personal information the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and KRS 61.878(4), providing that if a record contains both excepted and nonexcepted material, the agency must separate the excepted and make the nonexcepted material available for examination, we believe that it is incumbent on the Russellville Independent School District to identify the nature of the entries withheld, cite the statutory basis for denying access, and briefly explain how the cited statute applies to the entries withheld. For example, the District may withhold information of a purely personal character, such as social security numbers, home addresses, and home telephone numbers, pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(a), because these personal entries are unrelated to the teachers' performance of their public duties and the minimal public interest in disclosure must yield to their privacy interests.
In closing, we note that Ms. Hart raises a number of issues, in subsequent correspondence addressed to this office, which are incapable of resolution in an open records appeal. Simply stated, the parties' representations of what has transpired before and during this appeal are completely at odds. The Attorney General does not have the ability to resolve factual disputes of this nature. In the absence of clear and compelling proof to the contrary, we assume the truthfulness of the School District's representations. On this basis, we conclude that the District has discharged its duties under the Open Records Act by agreeing to permit Ms. Hart to inspect the nonexempt portions of records containing the information she seeks during its regular business hours. Although the law does not require her to do so, Ms. Hart may, as a matter of courtesy, wish to contact the District to arrange for a mutually agreeable inspection date and time.
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.
Footnotes
Footnotes