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 Mason County Attorney John F. Estill violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of Joseph Charlie Hill's January 29, 2003 request for records and information relating to Mr. Estill's appointment as special prosecutor. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in full the County Attorney's disposition of Mr. Hill's request.
In his January 29 records request, Mr. Hill asked that he be afforded the opportunity to inspect:
1. A copy of the appointment of Special Prosecutor for Case 00-M-00811 and Case No. 00-M-00812 that Manson [sic] County Attorney Office [sic] agreed to Prosecute in the 20th Judicial District Court of Kentucky 3-2-2001.
2. The name of the person and/or persons or the office that first contacted the Mason County Attorney's Office to accept the aforesaid appointment.
Mr. Estill responded by furnishing Mr. Hill with a copy of the December 4, 2000 letter of appointment from Karen M. Timmel, Director of the Attorney General's Special Prosecutions Division, to Mr. Estill. On appeal, Mr. Hill objects to Mr. Estill's failure to respond to his second request. We find that his objections are without merit.
In his second request, Mr. Hill poses a question relating to the name of the person who first contacted the Mason County Attorney about serving as special prosecutor in the referenced cases. His was a request for information as opposed to a request for reasonably described public records. The Mason County Attorney's denial of this portion of his request is fully supported by the law.
The Attorney General has long recognized that a public agency is not statutorily obligated to honor a request for information as opposed to a request for specifically described public records. For example, in 93-ORD-51 this office held that the Open Records Act:
was not intended to provide a requester with particular "information," or to require public agencies to compile information to conform to the parameters of a given request. See, e.g., OAG 76-375; OAG 79-547; OAG 81-335, OAG 86-51; OAG 87-84; OAG 89-77; OAG 89-81; OAG 90-19; 99-ORD-71. Rather, the Law provides for inspection of reasonably identified records.
93-ORD-51, p. 3. Mirroring this view, in OAG 87-84 we observed:
Public agencies are not required by the Open Records Act to gather and supply information independent of that which is set forth in public records. The public has a right to inspect public documents and to obtain whatever information is contained in them but the primary impact of the Open Records Act is to make records available for inspection and copying and not to require the gathering and supplying of information.
OAG 87-84, p. 3. These decisions were premised on the language of the statutes themselves, including KRS 61.871 (providing that "free and open examination of public records is in the public interest"), KRS 61.872(1) (providing that "[a]ll public records shall be open for inspection by any person"), and KRS 61.872(2) (providing that "[a]ny person shall have the right to inspect public records") (emphasis added). Based on the cited authorities, we conclude that the Mason County Attorney did not violate the Open Records Act in the disposition of Mr. Hill's January 29, 2003 information request.
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.