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 Transportation Cabinet violated the Open Records Act in responding to Susanna Massie-Thomas's March 30, 1999, request for information. For the reasons that follow, we find that the Cabinet did not violate the Act, and that its actions were consistent with the applicable provisions of the Act.
In her March 30 request, Ms. Massie-Thomas posed a series of questions relating to construction, accidents, and the volume of traffic on various roads in Central Kentucky. The Cabinet responded on April 6, 1999, through its custodian of records, Ed Roberts, and advised Ms. Massie-Thomas that no action would be taken on her request because it did not conform to the statutory requirement that the requester identify particular public records to be inspected. This was a proper response under the Open Records Act.
That Attorney General has long recognized that a public agency is not statutorily obligated to honor a request for information as opposed to a request for specifically described public records. For example, in 93-ORD-51 this office held that the Open Records Act:
was not intended to provide a requester with particular "information," or to require public agencies to compile information to conform to the parameters of a given request. See, e.g., OAG 76-375; OAG 79-547; OAG 81-335, OAG 86-51; OAG 87-84; OAG 89-77; OAG 89-81; OAG 90-19. Rather, the Law provides for inspection of reasonably identified records.
93-ORD-51, p. 3. Mirroring this view, in OAG 87-84 we observed:
Public agencies are not required by the Open Records Act to gather and supply information independent of that which is set forth in public records. The public has a right to inspect public documents and to obtain whatever information is contained in them but the primary impact of the Open Records Act is to make records available for inspection and copying and not to require the gathering and supplying of information.
OAG 87-84, p. 3. These decisions were premised on the language of the statutes themselves, including KRS 61.871 (providing that "free and open examination of public records is in the public interest"), KRS 61.872(1) (providing that "all public records shall be open for inspection by any person"), and KRS 61.872(2) (providing that "any person shall have the right to inspect public records ") (emphasis added).
Our conclusion is not altered by the fact that past administrations have furnished the same information to other individuals. The Open Records Act does not prohibit a public agency from voluntarily providing information in response to a request for same, it simply does not require the agency to do so. The Transportation Cabinet's refusal to honor Ms. Massie-Thomas's request for information therefore does not constitute a violation of the Open Records Act.
Ms. Massie-Thomas may wish to resubmit her open records request in the proper form where she requests to be provided with copies of specific records that are in the possession of the Cabinet.
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.