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 three open records appeals brought by Larry Pence. In his appeals, Mr. Pence argues that Hall's Service Center, Hoffman Engineering Corporation, and Kentucky Finance Company, respectively, failed to respond to the open records requests he submitted to each company, and thus are in violation of the Open Records Act.
In an appeal under the Open Records Act, the Attorney General is required to review a public agency's response to a request to inspect a public record and adjudicate whether the agency's response was in compliance with requirements of the Act. KRS 61.880(2).
At issue in this appeal is whether any of the companies involved here is a "public agency, " as defined by KRS 61.870(1), and thus subject to the application of the Open Records Act.
This office has consistently recognized that a private company or corporation does not come within the purview of the Open Records Act unless it "derives at least twenty-five percent (25%) of its funds expended by it in the Commonwealth of Kentucky from state or local authority funds." KRS 61.870(1)(h). 97-ORD-114; 96-ORD-15.
In order to obtain additional information and documentation relating to these appeals, and as authorized by KRS 61.880(2) and 40 KAR 1:030, this office contacted agents of each of the three companies to determine whether any fell within the definition of a "public agency, " as defined in KRS 61.870(1)(h).
Each advised that their company was a private company and confirmed that the company did not derive at least twenty-five percent (25%) of its funds expended by it in the Commonwealth of Kentucky from state or local authority funds.
Because none of the private companies involved in this appeal derive at least twenty-five (25%) of its funds expended by it in the state from state or local funds, they do not fall within the definition of a "public agency" to which the Open Records Act applies. Accordingly, the companies are not subject to the application of the Open Records Act and are not required to release their records for inspection or to adhere to KRS 61.880(1) relative to an open records request. 93-ORD-127.
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.