Opinion
Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the University of Kentucky timely responded to the open records request of Braphus Kaalund. For the reasons that follow, we find the University timely mailed its response within three business days after receipt of the request, as required by KRS 61.880(1).
In his letter of appeal, dated October 14, 2004, Mr. Kaalund indicated that the University had violated the Open Records Act by failing to timely respond to his open records request. In his letter, he stated, in part:
On October 6, 2004, I hand delivered an open records request to the Office of the General Counsel of the University of Kentucky (see attached request). As a result, a response was due to me in writing by Monday, October 11, 2004. After having no response whatsoever from the University of Kentucky or its Office of General Counsel, on Wednesday, October 13, 2004, I sent a letter asking for a response (see attached letter). Since sending the second letter, I still have not had any response whatsoever from the University or its Office of General Counsel. I request your assistance to compel the Office of the General Counsel of the University of Kentucky to respond to my request.
After receipt of notification of the appeal and a copy of the letter of appeal, Barbara Jones, General Counsel, University of Kentucky, provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. In her response, Ms. Jones advised, in relevant part:
This office received the Open Records request from Mr. Kaalund on Wednesday, October 6, 2004. On Monday, October 11, 2004, three business days after receipt of the request, we placed our response to Mr. Kaalund's [request] in the University campus mail system in accordance with KRS 61.880(1). Mr. Kaalund mistakenly believes that he is entitled to have received the response within three days. The law requires that the requester be notified within three days "excepting Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays" after the receipt of a request for records. The University complied with the statutory mandate. A copy of our response to Mr. Kaalund's request is provided herewith.
We are asked to determine whether the University failed to timely respond to Mr. Kaalund's request. For the reasons that follow, we find that the University's response was timely and did not violate the Open Records Act.
In 96-ORD-207, this office addressed the issue of computation of time for a timely response under the Act. In that decision, we stated:
The computation of time statute, KRS 446.030 (1) (a), which would be applicable to time requirements of the Open Records Act, reads as follows:
The last day of the period so computed is to be included, unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, a legal holiday, or a day on which the public office in which a document is required to be filed is actually and legally closed, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not one of the days just mentioned. When the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than seven (7) days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation.
In the instant case, Ms. Jones advised the open records request was received by the University on Wednesday, October 6, 2004. This would be the date or day of the act after which the three-day period of time begins to run. Thus, Thursday, October 7, 2004, would be day one. Friday, October 8, 2004, would be day two. The intermediate Saturday and Sunday are excluded from the computation. Monday, October 11, 2004, the day the University advised it mailed the response, would be day three. Accordingly, we find the University timely mailed its response within three business days after receipt of the request, as required by KRS 61.880(1). 02-ORD-81.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an 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.
Braphus Kaalund Student Senate PresidentStudent GovernmentUniversity of Kentucky120 Student CenterLexington, KY 40506-0030
Barbara JonesGeneral CounselOffice of Legal CounselUniversity of Kentucky301 Main BuildingLexington, KY 40506-0032