Request By:
Randy Skaggs
P. O. Box 1
Webbville, KY 41180Ray F. Bailey
Bath County Judge/Executive
Courthouse Annex
P.O. Box 39
Owingsville, KY 40360Donald A. Maze
115 S. Court Street
P.O. Box 580
Owingsville, KY 40360
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 Bath County Fiscal Court violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of Randy Skaggs' July 9, 2001, request for information and records documenting Bath County's compliance with Kentucky's animal control statutes, including KRS 258.192, for fiscal year 2000-2001. For the reasons that follow, we find that although Bath County went beyond its statutory duty in compiling information that was responsive to the request, and creating a new record containing that information, the county is nevertheless obligated to furnish Mr. Skaggs with existing documentation that supports the information it compiled upon receipt of a reasonable copying fee, not to exceed ten cents per page, 1 and postage charges.
On July 9, Mr. Skaggs requested that Bath County mail him copies of information and records identified as follows:
1. records or documentation indicating, referring to or pertaining to the "dog warden" :
2. records or documentation indicating, referring to or pertaining to the " dog pound " :
(3) records or documentation indicating, referring to or pertaining to the county's application for " financial help " :
On July 16, 2001, Bath County responded to Mr. Skaggs' request by furnishing him with narrative answers in a record created for the purpose of satisfying his request. This appeal followed.
The Kentucky Open Records Act imposes no obligation on a public agency to create a record that does not already exist in order to satisfy a records request. Instead, the Act contemplates records access by means of on-site inspection or receipt of copies through the mail. KRS 61.872(3) thus provides:
(3) A person may inspect the public records:
In construing the latter provision, this office has observed:
[A] requester who both lives and works in the same county where the public records are located may be required to inspect the records prior to receiving copies A requester who lives or works in a county other than the county where the public records are located may demand that the agency provide him with copies of records, without inspecting those records, if he precisely describes the records and they are readily available within the agency.
97-ORD-46, p. 3. Bath County does not object that Mr. Skaggs' request was not framed with sufficient precision, and was apparently able to retrieve records containing the information sought. While Bath County went beyond its duties and obligations in creating a record containing the responsive information, and is to be commended for its attempt to accommodate Mr. Skaggs, we hold that the requirements of the statute are not fully discharged until existing documents substantiating that information are disclosed. The Open Records Act establishes the right of access to nonexempt public records. Acknowledging that Bath County's efforts in this matter were meritorious, we nevertheless conclude that the county must retrieve the records from which the information was extracted, calculate its actual costs at a rate of ten cents per page for copies, plus postage, notify Mr. Skaggs of the costs, and mail copies of those records to him upon receipt of this amount.
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 In 01-ORD-136, this office affirmed the reasonableness of a ten cents per page copying charge.