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 Washington County Fiscal Court subverted the intent of the Open Records Act, short of denial of inspection and within the contemplation of KRS 61.880(4), 1 in requiring prepayment for copies of financial records 2 relating to the dog warden's yearly compensation and the dog pound's yearly operational costs for fiscal year 2001-2002 that were requested by Randy Skaggs on February 11, 2003. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the fiscal court's disposition of Mr. Skaggs's request. However, upon prepayment of $ 8.30 for 83 pages and $ 3.20 for postage, Mr. Skaggs is entitled to receive copies of the records identified in his request by mail.
Upon receipt of the Attorney General's notification of Mr. Skaggs's open records appeal, Washington County Judge/Executive John A. Settles advised this office that "Washington County has not now, or in the past, denied an open records request from Mr. Randy Skaggs. His failure to reply with proper remittance is the reason that requested information has been delayed." In support, Judge Settles included copies of the fiscal court's responses to Mr. Skaggs's requests. We find that the fiscal court's position finds ample support in the law, and attach a copy of the invoice for the purpose of finally resolving this matter.
KRS 61.872(3)(b) provides that public agencies must:
Mail copies of the public records to a person whose residence or principal place of business is outside the county in which the public records are located after he precisely describes the public records which are readily available within the public agency. If the person requesting the public records requests that copies of the records be mailed, the official custodian shall mail the copies upon receipt of all fees and the cost of mailing.
Additionally, KRS 61.874(1) provides:
When copies are requested, the custodian may require a written request and advance payment of the prescribed fee, including postage where appropriate.
(Emphasis added.) In construing these provisions, the Attorney General has observed:
The Act is a double-edged sword. Although it guarantees the public the right to inspect nonexempt records, it mandates that as a precondition to inspection a requester must comply with certain procedural requirements, including submission of a written request and prepayment for copies. As we have noted, we believe that the Act was never intended to frustrate access to records, and that an agency is statutorily obligated to provide a requester with timely access at a reasonable fee. Nevertheless, we also believe that an agency is justified in enforcing the procedural requirements of the Act.
96-ORD-7, pp. 4, 5. This includes the requirement of prepayment for copies of records transmitted by mail. See also 96-ORD-226; 99-ORD-30. The statute contains no provision for waiver of the prepayment requirement for any requester.
The fiscal court does not dispute Mr. Skaggs's right to copies of these records, and we are confident that upon receipt of the monies due for copying and postage his request will be fully honored and this matter resolved.
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.
Randy SkaggsP.O. Box 1Webbville, KY 41180
John A. SettlesWashington Co. Judge/ExecutiveP.O. Box 126Springfield, KY 40069
Hamilton SimmsWashington Co. Attorney108 West Main StreetSpringfield, KY 40069
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 KRS 61.880(4) provides as follows:
If a person feels the intent of KRS 61.870 to 61.884 is being subverted by an agency short of denial of inspection, including but not limited to the imposition of excessive fees or the misdirection of the applicant, the person may complain in writing to the Attorney General, and the complaint shall be subject to the same adjudicatory process as if the record had been denied.
2 Those records were identified as:
(1) financial records or documentation indicating, referring to or pertaining to the " dog warden's " yearly compensation:
a. the dog warden's weekly or monthly salary or compensation plus a total indicating their complete and combined annual monetary compensation (we need either copies of cancelled checks - including check number and date issued - or a computer readout of the employee's payroll records - including check number and date issued, etc.) for the entire fiscal year of 2001-2002.
(2) financial records or documentation indicating, referring to or pertaining to the " dog pound's yearly operational costs:
a. the amount of money paid out by the county or that it spent altogether on the operation of its own dog pound or either paid to another county, individual or organization for the usage of their dog pound or kennels for the entire fiscal year (including a comprehensive tally and categorical itemization of those yearly expenditures if county owned and operated); we need either copies of cancelled checks, receipts, appropriation ledgers or specific and verifiable bookkeeping entries showing payment (which would also include individual check numbers and dates written) by the county for the year-round operation of its own dog pound or for payments made to another county, individual or organization for the services of a dog pound for the entire fiscal year of 2001-2002.