Request By:
[NO REQUESTBY IN ORIGINAL]
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 City of Harrodsburg violated the Open Records Act in responding to Jerry Royalty's request for "City Attorney computers records on 6-20-2000 and 6-21-2000."
The City Attorney, Tebbs S. Moore, responded on behalf of the City by providing Mr. Royalty's attorney, Richard Clay, with hard copies of the requested computer records. Provided were copies of "Notice Special Called Meeting Harrodsburg Commission," to be held on June 22, 2000, and a Legal Notice advertising Ordinance No. 2000-6, to be run one time, on June 22, 2000, both prepared by Mr. Tebbs.
In the letter of appeal on behalf of his client, Mr. Clay asserts that Mr. Royalty sought access to the actual computer records of the City Attorney for city business on the specified dates. He asks this office to determine whether the City's failure to furnish access to these computer records violated a violation of the Open Records Act.
After receipt of Notification to Agency of Receipt of Open Records Appeal, and as authorized by KRS 61.880(2) and 40 KAR 1:030, Section 2, Mr. Tebbs provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. In his response on behalf of the City, Mr. Tebbs states, in relevant part:
Commissioner Royalty requested my (as City Attorney for City of Harrodsburg) actual computer records for June 20, 2000 and June 21, 2000. Commr. Royalty's attorney (Richard Clay) was furnished the only documents prepared by me which consisted of a Notice of a Special Meeting to be held on June 22, 2000 and of a legal notice advertising Ordinance No. 2000-6 (this Ordinance apparently has no bearing on this request).
I do not believe I can open my computer records under such a request as they contain confidential information concerning many other clients, which also represent the "work product" involved.
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the response of the City was proper and did not constitute a violation of the Open Records Act.
The City provided Mr. Clay with hard copies of Mr. Tebbs' computer records that were responsive to Mr. Royalty's request. It is our opinion that this alternative mechanism for inspection of the requested computer records did not impose an unreasonable restriction upon the inspection of public records nor did it constitute a denial to inspect. We refer the parties to 00-ORD-8, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, holding that if an alternative mechanism for inspection of electronic records exists, such as printing out the requested computer records in hard copy format, the requester cannot persuasively argue that unreasonable restrictions on inspection were imposed.
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.