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 Letcher County Jailer violated the Open Records Act in his disposition of Mountain Eagle editor Sam Adams's February 4, 2000, request for information and records pertaining to present and former jail employees and jail canteen expenditures. For the reasons that follow, we find that the jailer violated the procedural requirements of the Open Records Act in failing to respond to Mr. Adams's request in writing, and with three business days, and that his February 21 response was only partially consistent with the disclosure requirements of the Act.
On February 4, Mr. Adams requested:
the name and job title of each person employed in the jail for the past year, the number of hours each of those persons worked during each pay period for the past year, their rate of pay[, ...] whether they are classified as full-time or part-time employees[, and] their date of hire.
In addition to those items, I would like an accounting of the jail canteen fund, showing all money received and expended over the past fiscal year and the current fiscal year.
Having received no response to his request, Mr. Adams initiated this open records appeal on February 12, 2000.
In response to this office's notification of receipt of Mr. Adams's appeal, Letcher County Jailer Gary W. Cornett notified us that he had provided Mr. Adams with copies of "the record that [he is] required to maintain." Records disclosing the number of hours worked and payroll records, Mr. Cornett explained, are not records within his custody and control, but could be obtained from the Office of the Letcher County Judge/Executive. He enclosed a one-page document identifying part time, full time, and former employees of the Letcher County Jail by name and job title. He also enclosed two documents captioned "Jail Commissiary Fund Summary & Reconciliation" for the period from July 1, 1999, through August 16, 1999, and for the period from August 17, 1999, through December 31, 1999. The latter documents reflect the cash balance at the commencement and close of those periods, along with total receipts, total funds available, and total expenditures for the periods. Shortly after these records were released, Mr. Adams responded that the canteen financial records furnished were "grossly inadequate." Although he indicated that he would "take Mr. Cornett's word" that he does not have custody and control of time sheets and payroll records, he maintained that the canteen financial records did not disclose from what sources the money was received, how it was expended, or who received it. Mr. Adams asserted that these records were "by no means 'an accounting of the jail canteen fund ...'"
We begin by noting that the Letcher County Jailer's failure to respond to Mr. Adams's February 4 request in a proper and timely fashion constituted a violation of KRS 61.880(1). That statute provides:
Each public agency, upon any request for records made under KRS 61.870 to 61.884, shall determine within three (3) days, excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with the request and shall notify in writing the person making the request, within the three (3) day period, of its decision. An agency response denying, in whole or in part, inspection of any record shall include a statement of the specific exception authorizing the withholding of the record and a brief explanation of how the exception applies to the record withheld. The response shall be issued by the official custodian or under his authority, and it shall constitute final agency action.
To the extent that the jailer failed to respond to Mr. Adams's request in writing, and within three business days, he violated the cited provision. We urge Mr. Cornett to review that provision to insure that future responses conform to the Open Records Act.
Turning to the substantive issues in this appeal, we find that although Mr. Cornett was not legally required to do so, he responded to Mr. Adams's improperly framed requests for information by releasing records that were partially responsive to those requests. This office has long recognized that requests for information, as opposed to requests for specifically described public records, need not be honored. See, e.g. OAG 76-375. Thus, in OAG 87-84 the Attorney General observed:
Obviously information will be obtained from an inspection of the records and documents but the duty imposed upon public agencies under the Act is to make public documents available for inspection and copying. 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; see also OAG 89-77, p. 4 ("Open records provisions address only inspection of records . They do not require public agencies or officials to provide or compile specific information to conform to the parameters of a given request"); OAG 89-81, p. 5 ("Open Records provisions were not intended to serve as a comprehensive audit tool, or as a means of commanding compilation and production of specific information "); OAG 90-19, p. 3 ("Kentucky's Open Records provisions are not intended to provide a requester with particular 'information,' nor to require public agencies to compile information to conform to the parameters of a given request").
Nevertheless, Mr. Cornett apparently generated a document containing available information relating to past and present jail employees that was responsive to the first part of Mr. Adams's request. In so doing, the jailer went above and beyond his statutory duties since he was not statutorily obligated to go to such lengths on the requester's behalf. Unfortunately, he did not go far enough in responding to the second part of Mr. Adams's request.
Mr. Adams requested "an accounting of the jail canteen fund, showing all money received and expended over the past fiscal year and the current fiscal year. " Treating this ill-framed request for information as a properly framed request for records, Mr. Cornett provided Mr. Adams with a jail commissary fund summary for a six-month period. That summary contained numerical entries, but disclosed nothing about the source of the funds received, on what they were expended, and who received them. While the records Mr. Cornett furnished were partially responsive, it is clear that any additional records reflecting jail commission funds expended and received, such as invoices, receipts, and check ledgers, must be disclosed. Further, those records must reflect monies received and expended for the past two years, and not the six-month period referred to in the records already released. As this office has so often noted, "Amounts paid from public coffers are perhaps uniquely of public concern ? [and] the public is entitled to inspect records documenting exact amounts paid from public monies, to include amounts paid for items or for salaries." OAG 90-30, p. 3. Stated alternatively, "Where public funds go, the public's interest follows." 96-ORD-50, p. 4. The Letcher County Jailer should immediately make arrangements for Mr. Adams to inspect any financial records relating to the jail canteen that are responsive to his request.
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.