Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Cabinet for Workforce Development - Kentucky Client Assistance Program violated the Open Records Act in its disposition of the open records requests submitted by Laura Atwood. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Program's disposition of her request was procedurally deficient but substantively correct.
By letter dated July 5, 1999, Ms. Atwood requested a copy of all records maintained by the Client Assistance Program, including any case notes, interagency memos, electronic communication, and correspondence with the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation.
Along with a cover letter, dated July 19, 1999, Evelyn Gander, Director, provided Ms. Atwood with a copy of her Client Assistance Program file.
By letter to Ms. Gander, dated August 4, 1999, Ms. Atwood acknowledged receipt of the records provided, but noted that interagency memos, electronic communication, and correspondence with the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, that she had requested, had not been provided.
By letter dated August 5, 1999, Ms. Gander responded to Ms. Atwood, explaining:
I received your request, dated August 4, for additional information in your Client Assistance file.
The information I mailed with a letter to you, dated July 19, is Client Assistance Program-generated. Records that originated with the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation should be requested from that department.
Ms. Atwood appealed to this office the agency's partial denial of this portion of her request.
After receipt of Notification of Ms. Atwood's appeal, Ms. Gander provided this office with a response, on behalf of the Client Assistance Program, to the issues raised in the appeal. In her response, Ms. Gander explained:
As provided by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), the Client Assistance Program serves, in part, those applicants and clients who are receiving or seek to receive services from the state agencies of the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) and Department of the Blind under WIA. (Copy attached.) In Ms. Atwood's case, it was the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, of which she is a client when she contacted the Client Assistance Program. Thus, Client Assistance Program services that seek to resolve differences between clients and respective departments derive from the existence of those departments. As such, records of DVR in Ms. Atwood's case that originated with that department should be released by DVR and not the Client Assistance Program. I attempted to explain this in my letter of August 5 and again when Ms. Atwood came to the Client Assistance office December 3, 1999 to obtain updated copies of her Client Assistance Program records, which were provided to her.
The pages to which Ms. Atwood's letter refers in paragraph two include miscellaneous notes taken in consultation with DVR staff and officials of the Rehabilitative Services Administration in Client Assistance Program efforts to assist Ms. Atwood in obtaining DVR services within the parameters of governing law.
We are asked to determine whether the actions of the Client Assistance Program violated the Open Records Act.
In her open records request, Ms. Atwood requested a copy of all her records maintained by the Client Assistance Program. In response, the Program provided her with a copy of her Client Assistance Program file. It advised her that information generated by the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation should be requested from that agency. In its response to this office, the Program explained that the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation records in Ms. Atwood's case that originated from that Department should be released by that agency and not by Client Assistance Program.
If an agency has copies of records from another agency and denies access to those records, it must cite the exception of the Open Records Act that authorizes the denial of access to the requested public records and a brief explanation as to how the exception applies to the records withheld. KRS 61.880(1).
The Client Assistance Program failed to cite the exception upon which it relied in withholding access to its copies of Department of Vocational Rehabilitation's records relating to Ms. Atwood's case. Thus, we conclude that the agency's response was procedurally deficient.
40 KAR 1:030, Section 6. Moot Complaints, provides:
If the requested documents are made to the complaining party after a complaint is made, the Attorney General shall decline to issue a decision in the matter.
In 00-ORD-71, Ms. Atwood appealed the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation's denial of her request for all records related to her case. In that appeal, we concluded that the Department had complied with the Open Records Act by providing Ms. Atwood with all the records she requested. Since the Department, as we determined in 00-ORD-71, provided Ms. Atwood with copies of its records relating to her case and the Client Assistance Program has provided copies of its file to her, we conclude that this issue is moot, as records requested from both agencies have been provided to Ms. Atwood. 40 KAR 1:030, Section 6.
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.