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 Knox County Fiscal Court violated provisions of the Open Records Act in the disposition of Randy Skaggs' July 9, 2001, request 1 for copies of various records documenting Knox County's compliance with Kentucky's animal control statutes, including KRS 258.195, 2 for fiscal year 2000-2001. Having reviewed the record on appeal, we conclude that the fiscal court's July 12, 2001 response did not satisfy the requirements of KRS 61.880(1). Because the fiscal court failed to state a legally sufficient basis for denying Mr. Skaggs' request, it must mail him copies of the records identified in that request.
In a letter dated July 12, 2001, Knox County Solid Waste Coordinator Ronnie Sizemore advised Mr. Skaggs that according to the Knox County Attorney, Knox County had already sent him the records he requested. Mr. Sizemore suggested that Mr. Skaggs "check his records."
On August 22, 2001, Mr. Skaggs initiated this open records appeal. On August 28, 2001, two business days after the appeal was received in this office, 3 the Attorney General mailed a copy of Mr. Skaggs' request letter and his letter of appeal, along with our notification of receipt of open records appeal, to the Knox County Judge/Executive and the Knox County Attorney. Although the notification clearly states that pursuant to 40 KAR 1:030 Section 2, "the agency may respond to this appeal," we received no response to our notification, and have not been advised that the fiscal court took subsequent action on the request or appeal. Attempts to communicate with the Knox County Attorney by telephone to ascertain the status of Mr. Skaggs' request proved unsuccessful.
Although the Knox Count Fiscal Court responded to Mr. Skaggs' request in writing, and within three business days, its response was deficient because it failed to state a legally defensible basis for denying the request. KRS 61.880(1) 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.
In construing this provision, Kentucky's Court of Appeals has determined:
The language of the statute directing agency action is exact. It requires the custodian of records to provide particular and detailed information in response to a request for documents . . ." [A] limited and perfunctory response . . . [does not] even remotely compl[y] with the requirements of the Act -- much less . . . amount[] to substantial compliance.
Edmondson v. Alig, Ky. App., 926 S.W.2d 856, 858 (1996). Knox County's response to Mr. Skaggs' request consisted of little more than a bare statement that his request had been previously fulfilled. No statutory exemption was invoked for denying the request, and no explanation provided as to how one or more of the exemptions applied to the record withheld. The fact that Knox County furnished Mr. Skaggs with records documenting compliance with Kentucky's animal control laws in past years, and in response to past requests, does not relieve it of its obligation to provide records relating to compliance in the current fiscal year. Employees, salaries and other expenditures, and animal shelter locations, inter alia, change, and records reflecting these changes, or indeed reflecting no changes, must be disclosed upon request unless a statutory basis exists for denying access.
We know of no legal basis for denying Mr. Skaggs' request for copies of records documenting Knox County's compliance with the animal control statutes. The Kentucky Supreme Court has concluded:
The public's right to know is premised upon the public's right to expect its agencies properly to execute their statutory functions. In general, inspection of records may reveal whether the public servants are indeed serving the public, and the policy of disclosure provides impetus for an agency steadfastly to pursue the public good.
Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychologists v. Courier-Journal and Louisville Times Co., Ky., 826 S.W.2d 324, 328 (1992) (emphasis added). The Knox County Fiscal Court must therefore mail Mr. Skaggs the records identified in the attached open records request. It is not excused from its statutory obligations by virtue of having responded to a similar open records request previously filed by Mr. Skaggs.
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 proceedings.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 A copy of Mr. Skaggs' July 9, 2001, request is attached.
2 KRS 258.195(1) provides, in part:
On or before July 1, 1954, the fiscal court of each county shall employ a dog warden. On or before July 1, 1955, the fiscal court of each county shall establish and maintain a dog pound as a means of facilitating [the] administration of this chapter.
3 Mr. Skaggs' appeal was received on August 24, 2001.