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 Executive Branch Ethics Commission violated the Open Records Act in denying James D. Carreer's December 10, 2001 request for minutes of the Commission's May 11, 2001 meeting. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the Commission's denial of Mr. Carreer's request with the exception of the minutes of the open, public portion of the meeting. We believe that 97-ORD-70 is dispositive of this issue.
On December 10, Mr. Carreer requested a copy of "those portions of the minutes of the meeting that indicate the Commission members present and that portion of the minutes of the meeting when the Commission acted on its own motion to initiate a preliminary investigation for any infractions by [Mr. Carreer] of the Executive Branch Code of Ethics." 1 The Commission denied Mr. Carreer's request on December 12, 2001, asserting that KRS 11A.080(3), KRS 61.878(1)(j), and KRS 61.878(1)(l) "strictly prohibit access to such records." Shortly thereafter, Mr. Carreer initiated this appeal arguing that KRS 11A.080(3) restricts public access to Commission records not state employee access to those records of the Commission relating to its investigation of that employee. Further, he argued that KRS 61.878(3) vests him with an absolute right of access to records relating to him, including those of a preliminary nature that are otherwise exempt pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(j).
In a supplemental response directed to this office following commencement of Mr. Carreer's appeal, Commission General Counsel Boyce A. Crocker elaborated on the Commission's position. He explained:
[I]n enacting the Executive Branch Code of Ethics, the General Assembly made no exceptions to the confidentiality of preliminary proceedings or investigative records. See KRS 11A.080(2), (3), and (4). There is no exception in this law that allows any person to view records of the Commission's preliminary proceedings or records, including the alleged violator. The only documents that the alleged violator has access to in a case that does not proceed to an administrative hearing are the documents issued to him by the Commission, which may only be a letter issued pursuant to KRS 11A.080(3) or a confidential reprimand issued pursuant to KRS 11A.080(4). In this case the Commission, in terminating the investigation of Mr. Carreer, issued only a termination letter to him. This is the only document he is entitled to review under the law.
In support, Mr. Crocker cited 97-ORD-70 for the proposition that "a termination, just as a confidential reprimand does not constitute a 'final determination' as contemplated in KRS 11A.100."
On January 6, 2002, Mr. Carreer submitted written objections to the Commission's supplemental response. Attempting to distinguish the facts of his appeal from the facts before us in 97-ORD-70, he observed:
In your opinion you stated that the Open Records Act and the Ethics Commission Statute act in tandem and that KRS 11A.080(2) prohibits disclosure of "records relating to a preliminary investigation until a final determination is made by the Commission, the language of this provision is clear on its face." Your determination in Ms. Smith's case was that the Confidential Reprimand was not a final determination as contemplated by KRS 11A.100(3)(a)a [sic] through (e) and Ms. Smith therefore, was not entitled to review the records. This scenario is different than my situation, which is not subject to the options of KRS 11A.080(4). In my case however, a final determination was reached. This is specifically stated in the November 9, 2001 letter sent to me by the Commission, the second paragraph [of] which states, "This letter is sent in accordance with KRS 11A.080(3) to notify you of the Commissions' final determination in this matter." As such, nothing in KRS 11A precludes me as the accused violator from reviewing the records when a final determination has been reached by the Commission. This you specifically opine in paragraph 2 of 97-ORD-70. Further, KRS 61.878(3) specifically authorizes my review of this information.
Respectfully, we disagree.
As noted, in 97-ORD-70 the Attorney General opined:
KRS 61.878(1)(l) authorizes public agencies to withhold "public records or information the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted or otherwise made confidential by enactment of the General Assembly." This provision operates in tandem with KRS 11A.080(2) to prohibit disclosure of "records relating to a preliminary investigation until a final determination is made by the Commission." The language of this provision is clear on its face. Except under narrowly defined circumstances, which are not relevant here, the Commission cannot release records generated in a preliminary investigation until it makes a final determination.
In 97-ORD-70, this office addressed the question of whether a confidential reprimand issued pursuant to KRS 11.080(4)(a), and based on a finding of probable cause with mitigating circumstances, was tantamount to the final determination reached at the conclusion of a full-blown adjudicatory hearing contemplated by KRS 11A.100(3)(a) through (e). The confidentiality provision codified at KRS 11A.080(2) does not extend to records generated in the course of a KRS 11A.100 adjudicatory hearing. We concluded that the issuance of a confidential reprimand was not a final determination and that the protection afforded by KRS 11A.080(2) applied to the requested records, reasoning:
If [a confidential reprimand] were treated as a final determination, the purpose for which KRS 11A.080(4)(a) was enacted, namely, to privately reprimand employees for potential violations upon a finding of mitigating circumstances, would be defeated. For good or ill, such potential violations would be exposed to the light of public scrutiny.
97-ORD-70, p. 2.
Contrary to Mr. Carreer's belief, a finding of no probable cause is not a final determination such as that reached at the conclusion of a full-blown adjudicatory hearing conducted under KRS 11A.100(3). It is, instead, an option available to the Commission if, in the course of a preliminary investigation, it determines that the complaint does not allege facts sufficient to constitute a violation of Chapter 11A. 2 Records pertaining to such preliminary investigative findings, including minutes of executive sessions of the Commission, are expressly excluded from public inspection by operation of KRS 11A.080(2). As we noted in 97-ORD-70, "There is no exception in the law for a request for investigatory records submitted by the person who is the subject of the investigation . . . [and he or she] stands in the same shoes as a third party requester." 97-ORD-70, p. 2. The investigation into Mr. Carreer's conduct did not proceed to an adjudication but was terminated in the preliminary investigative phase. Pursuant to KRS 11A.080(2) , incorporated into the Open Records Act by KRS 61.878(1)(l), he is foreclosed from inspecting records relating to the preliminary investigation, including the minutes of the Commission's executive session during which the investigation was initiated. Notwithstanding the Commission's ill-chosen words in its November 9, 2001 letter notifying Mr. Carreer that no probable cause had been found, this was not a final determination resulting from an adjudicatory proceeding governed by KRS 11A.100 and subject to public inspection.
With reference to Mr. Carreer's argument that he is nevertheless entitled to the requested records under authority of KRS 61.878(3), 3 we direct him to the concluding paragraph of 97-ORD-70, in which we opined:
As a public agency employee, Ms. Smith would normally be entitled to inspect and copy "any record including preliminary and other supporting documentation that relates to [her]" at the conclusion of any criminal or administrative investigations by an agency. KRS 61.878(3). The KRS 61.878(1)(h) protection afforded records of agencies involved in administrative adjudication that were compiled in the process of detecting violations would expire after enforcement action was completed or a decision was made to take no action, and she would be entitled to inspect those records. The specific confidentiality provisions of the code of ethics supercede these general provisions of the Open Records Act which have no force and effect in Ms. Smith's case.
The same is true in the appeal before us. The specific confidentiality provision codified at KRS 11A.080(2) overrides KRS 61.878(3) , and Mr. Carreer has no greater right of access to the Commission's confidential records than the public generally. For these reasons, we conclude that the Executive Branch Ethics Commission did not violate the Open Records Act in denying Mr. Carreer's request for the minutes of the executive session during which the Commission initiated a preliminary investigation of his conduct.
We do not believe that the protection from disclosure of Commission records afforded by KRS 11A.080(2) extends to the minutes of the open, public portions of Commission meetings. We have confirmed that the Executive Branch Ethics Commission convenes in an open, public session and retires to executive session for proceedings relating to preliminary investigations. The minutes of its meetings reflecting the call to order, the presence of a quorum, and/or the names of the members present, are not "records relating to a preliminary investigation, " are not made confidential pursuant to KRS 11A.080(2), and must therefore be disclosed. Mr. Carreer is entitled to the minutes of the May 11, 2001 Commission meeting that reflect the open, public portion of the meeting, including those portions that reflect which Commission members were present.
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 That investigation was concluded in November 2001 with a finding of insufficient evidence to constitute a violation of KRS Chapter 11A per KRS 11A.080(3).
2 The other options available to the Commission under KRS 11A.030 consist of finding probable cause with mitigating circumstances and issuing a confidential reprimand, as in 97-ORD-70, or initiating an adjudicatory proceeding governed by KRS 11A.100.
3 KRS 61.878(3) provides:
No exemption in this section shall be construed to deny, abridge, or impede the right of a public agency employee, including university employees, an applicant for employment, or an eligible on a register to inspect and to copy any record including preliminary and other supporting documentation that relates to him. The records shall include, but not be limited to, work plans, job performance, demotions, evaluations, promotions, compensation, classification, reallocation, transfers, layoffs, disciplinary actions, examination scores, and preliminary and other supporting documentation. A public agency employee, including university employees, applicant, or eligible shall not have the right to inspect or to copy any examination or any documents relating to ongoing criminal or administrative investigations by an agency.