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 issue presented in this appeal is whether the Paducah Water Works violated the Open Records Act in responding to the open records request of George M. Dearing for certain of the Water Work's records related to its employees and the agency's health care plan and insurance costs.
In his letter of appeal dated September 26, 2000, Mr. Dearing indicated that he had received no response to his request, which was tendered to the agency on August 30, 2000.
After receipt of this office's "Notification to Agency of Receipt of Open Records Appeal," W. David Denton, attorney at law, provided this office with a copy of the agency's October 3, 2000 response to Mr. Dearing's request. In his response, Mr. Denton stated:
I am in receipt of your letter of August 30, 2000, to Mr. Glen Anderson requesting various information. Paducah Water Works will comply and furnish all requested information to you for inspection and/or copying with the exception of the salaries of all staff union and management for the last three years. Paducah Water Works would furnish the salary information if privacy concerns can be properly addressed.
We are asked to determine whether the agency's response violated the Open Records Act. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that, although the agency's response was procedurally deficient, its was substantively correct and in accord with the Act.
The Water Works violated the procedural requirements of the Open Records Act set forth at KRS 61.880 (1) by failing to respond in writing, and within three business days, to Mr. Dearing's request. We urge agency to review the cited provision to insure that future responses conform to the Open Records Act.
Addressing the substantive issues, the Water Works advised, with the exception of the salary records, that it would make all requested records available for Mr. Dearing's inspection. Thus, the appeal is moot as to those records. 40 KAR 1:030, Section 6. The agency's response indicated that the salary information would be made available if privacy concerns could be properly addressed. Since the parties to this appeal have yet to resolve this issue, we offer the following to assist in the resolution of that issue.This office has previously held that the public is entitled to know the name, position, workstation, and salary of officers and employees of public agencies. OAG 76-717. These are matters in which the public has an interest since public employees are carrying on the public's business at public expense and, thus, are subject to public disclosure. However, a public employee is entitled to privacy as to his personal life. We have recognized that personal information, such as home addresses, social security numbers, and materials setting forth information as to amounts withheld from pay checks of public employees such as taxes, insurance, retirement, and savings are within the privacy exception to public inspection under KRS 61.878(1)(a). 98-ORD-99; 96-ORD-274; OAG 88-13.
The public is entitled to know the salaries paid to employees of public agencies and may redact personal information, such as is set out above, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. KRS 61.878(4). Consistent with the authorities cited above, the parties to this appeal should continue to cooperate to resolve any differences or misunderstandings related to the salary information sought by Mr. Dearing.
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.