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 is before the Attorney General on appeal from the actions of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG) in response to the open records requests of William G. Finn, dated February 11, 1999 and February 12, 1999, for copies of numerous documents related to the letting of bids for the electrical contracting portion of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Detention Center project.
On behalf of his client, Mr. Finn, John Frith Stewart initiated this appeal on March 5, 1999. In his letter, Mr. Stewart indicated that LFUCG provided some of the requested records, had not addressed some of the requests, and had referenced others, but had not provided copies.
As authorized by KRS 61.880(2) and 40 KAR 1:030, Section 2, Glenda Humphrey George, Corporate Counsel, LFUCG, provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. Ms. George indicated that subsequent to Mr. Finn's requests, arrangements were made between the parties for Mr. Finn to come in to inspect those documents which LFUCG had available for him.
In addition to LFUCG's response to Mr. Stewart's letter of appeal, LFUCG has provided this office with copies of subsequent communications with Mr. Finn, dated April 5, 1999, April 26, 1999, and May 7, 1999, which indicate that LFUCG has provided Mr. Finn with not only the records he requested on February 11 and 12, 1999, but continues to provide him with additional records he has requested since those dates. Under these circumstances, we conclude that LFUCG has complied with the Open Records Act by providing the requester with the records he requested. If there remain any records in dispute, the requester can initiate another appeal to this office or proceed directly to the appropriate circuit court. KRS 61.880; 61.882. In OAG 89-81, the Attorney General stated:
This office cannot, with the information currently available, adjudicate a dispute regarding a disparity, if any, between records for which inspection has already been permitted, and those sought but not provided. Indeed, such is not the role of this office under open records provisions. It seems clear that you have permitted inspection of some records Mr. Smith asked to inspect, and that copies of some records have been provided. Hopefully any dispute regarding the records here involved can be worked out through patient consultation and cooperation between the parties.
The parties should continue to cooperate to resolve any differences or misunderstandings related to records sought by Mr. Finn or Mr. Stewart.
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.