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 response of the West Knox Fire & Rescue Department to the open records request of Leslie Lawson violated the Open Records Act. For the reasons that follow, we conclude it did not.
By application dated May 26, 2001, Mr. Lawson requested a "copy of all Kentucky Basic Fire Incident Report of the year 1997 and 1998 that your agency responded to in Knox and Laurel County area."
In his letter of appeal, dated June 2, 2001, Mr. Lawson stated that the Department had not responded to his request.
After receiving "Notification to Agency of Receipt of Open Records Appeal" and a copy of Mr. Lawson's letter, Paul W. Collins, Battalion Chief, President, on behalf of the Department, provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. In his response, Chief Collins indicated that the Department did not receive Mr. Lawson's request until June 5, 2001, due to the fact that it had been inaccurately addressed. Addressing the substantive issue, Chief Collins advised:
As you can see from Mr. Lawson's request to our department, he is requesting copies of all Incident Reports of years 1997 and 1998 in which we responded to in Knox and Laurel area. On June 5, 2001 I mailed Mr. Lawson a response requesting him to be more specific as to dates and location so we may be able to give him what he needs (per KRS 61.884 Person's access to records relating to him) which I enclosed a copy of in my letter to him. I also advised Mr. Lawson we responded to over 400 different incidents in 1997 and 1998 and each report was approximately 2 to 3 pages each would amount to approximately 800 to 1200 pages. I also advised of advanced fees for the records he is requesting per (KRS 61.872 Right to inspection - Limitation) section 3 sub section b which mentions fees and cost of mailing which I also enclosed a copy of to Mr. Lawson. The request I have made to Mr. Lawson is intended to alleviate any undue charges for fees and shipping and to aid us in helping him receive accurate documentation per KRS 61.884.
We are asked to determine whether the Department's actions constituted a violation of the Open Records Act. For the reasons that follow, we find no violation.
We address first Mr. Lawson's claim that he did not receive a timely response to his request. As the Department explained in its response to this office, this was due to his placing an inaccurate mailing address for the Department. The agency provided Mr. Lawson with a response to his request on June 5, 2001, the same day it received the request. Thus, under these facts, we find no procedural violation of the Open Records Act.
Addressing the substantive issue, we note that the Department did not deny Mr. Lawson's request. It requested him to be more specific as to dates and location so that it could provide him with the records he was seeking. The Department further advised Mr. Lawson that the agency responded to over 400 different incidents in 1997 and 1998 and each report was approximately 2 to 3 pages each and would amount to approximately 800 to 1200 pages. The Department explained, in its response to this office, that the request for more information was "intended to alleviate any undue charges for fees and shipping and to aid [the Department] in helping him receive accurate documentation. "
In 94-ORD-12, at page 3, this office observed:
The purpose and intent of the Open Records Act is to permit the "free and open examination of public records." KRS 61.871. However, this right of access is not absolute. As a precondition to inspection, a requesting party must identify with "reasonable particularity" those documents which he or she wishes to review. OAG 89-81; OAG 91-58; OAG 92-56. Thus, if a public agency is to provide access to public documents, the requester must identify them with sufficient clarity to enable the agency to locate and make them available.
Pursuant to KRS 61.874(1), a public agency may require advance payment of the prescribed copying fee, including postage, before providing the requested records.
As noted above, the Department asked that Mr. Lawson describe with more precision the records he was seeking to ensure that did not receive copies of records he did not want or incur unnecessary costs. Thus, we conclude the Department's response to Mr. Lawson's request was neither an attempt to subvert the intent of nor a violation of the Open Records Act.
To obtain the records he seeks and to avoid unnecessary costs, Mr. Lawson should respond to the Department's request for more specific information and clarify the precise records he is requesting.
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.
Leslie Lawson, # 122950Northpoint Training CenterP.O. Box 479Burgin, KY 40310
Charles JacksonWest Knox Fire DepartmentBarbourville Hwy Old 25ECorbin, KY 40701
David JorjaniKnox County AttorneyCourthouse, Suite 107Barbourville, KY 40906