Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the actions of the City of Tompkinsville relative to the August 4, 2003 request of Steve Gardner for a "statement showing the number of people employed by the city of Tompkinsville as of 01/01/03 and also the number of employees as of 08/04/03. If possible, I would also like the numbers broken down by department." For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the City's responses denying his request for information, as opposed to a request for specifically described records, did not violate the Open Records Act.
By letter dated August 7, 2003, A. Thomas Davis, Tompkinsville City Attorney, responded to Mr. Gardner's request, advising:
Your requests do not meet the criteria of KRS 61. Your attempted request had no address and we were not successful at first in contacting you by telephone. Even though you are not a resident of Tompkinsville, and have not met the requirements of the statute, we are sending you a copy of the city's ethics ordinance.
If you wish to inspect the Tompkinsville waste plan, the City of Tompkinsville office hours are 8:00 AM - 3:30 PM
As a result of the City's response, Mr. Gardner initiated an appeal to this office. In his letter of appeal, Mr. Garner stated, in relevant part:
I would like my request to the city answered. As I am not asking for specific names, I do not think that an inquiry on the number of employees by department is unreasonable. I also do not understand why the city is stating that this information is not covered under KRS 61 as they should have documentation as to whom their employees are.
After receipt of notification of the appeal and a copy of the letter of appeal, Mr. Davis provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. Elaborating on his original response, Mr. Davis explained, in pertinent part:
The statute requires that precise existing public records are to be made available. The law does not allow a "request for a statement". It allows only for inspection of records. The city does not have a duty to compile lists or manufacture documents tailored to the requestor's needs. The city has no obligation under the statute to cull payroll information (which are not a public record pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(a)) and compose the lists that were requested.
In his August 4, 2003 request, Mr. Gardner asked for a statement showing the number of people employed by the city of Tompkinsville as of 01/01/03 and also the number of employees as of 08/04/03. In addition he asked, if possible, that the numbers be broken down by department. The City advised Mr. Gardner that no action would be taken on his request because it did not conform to the statutory requirement that the requester identify particular public records to be inspected. This was a proper response under the Open Records Act.
That 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. 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).
The Open Records Act does not prohibit a public agency from voluntarily providing information in response to a request for same, it simply does not require the agency to do so. The City's refusal to honor Mr. Gardener's request for information, as opposed to specifically described records, therefore does not constitute a violation of the Open Records Act.
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.
Steve Gardner4625 Harlan CrossroadsTompkinsville, KY 42167
Debra Hale, ClerkCity of Tompkinsville206 North Magnolia StreetTompkinsville, KY 42167
A. Thomas Davis, AttorneyCity of Tompkinsville206 North Magnolia StreetTompkinsville, KY 42167