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 actions of the Office of Madison County Attorney relative to the open records request of William P. Grise violated the Open Records Act. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the agency's actions did not violate the Act.
By letter of February 14, 2005, Mr. Grise submitted the following request to the Office of Madison County Attorney:
1. Does Marc Robbins and/or the County Attorney office of Madison County have or has made a contract with the Cabinet as defined and authorized in KRS 134.500 for the collection of delinquent property taxes?
2. How many court actions for the collection of delinquent taxes have been filed by the Madison County attorney or his office during the past five years? (KRS 134.500, Section 3.)
On February 17, 2005, Marc Robbins, Madison County Attorney, responded to Mr. Grise's request, advising:
Yes I do have an agreement with the Revenue Cabinet for the collection of delinquent taxes.
In response to your second inquiry, we do not compile statistics of the number of suits filed. The Madison Circuit Court Clerk is the keeper of the records, although I doubt they keep a running total of these tax cases.
Shortly after receipt of Mr. Robbins' response, Mr. Grise initiated the instant appeal, arguing that he did not receive a proper answer to the second question in his request.
After receipt of notification of the appeal and a copy of the letter of appeal, Mr. Robbins provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. In his response, Mr. Robbins argued that "Mr. Grise's request asks only for answers, not documents. The applicable statues impose duties to release public records, not information not maintained in the regular course of business."
We concur with Mr. Robbins' response. Mr. Grise's requests were for information, rather than for specific records. An agency is not obligated to honor requests that constitute a request for information as opposed to a request for specifically described records. The Kentucky Open Records Act addresses requests for records, not requests for information. In 95-ORD-131, p. 2, we observed:
Requests for information, as distinguished from records, are outside of the scope of the open records provisions. See, e.g., OAG 89-77. Our position is premised on the notion that "[o]pen records provisions address only inspection of records . . . [and] do not require public agencies or officials to provide or compile specific information to conform to the parameters of a given request."
In response to Mr. Grise's request for statistical information, i.e., the number of actions filed during the last five years, Mr. Grise advised that it did not compile statistics of the number of suits filed. This office has also long recognized that a public agency is not obligated to compile a list or create a record to satisfy an open records request. See, e.g., OAG 76-375; OAG 90-101; 96-ORD-251. Accordingly, we conclude that the actions of the Office of the Madison County Attorney, in this regard, did not violate the Open Records Act. It was not required to compile or create a record it did not maintain to meet the parameters of Mr. Grise's request.
Finally, Mr. Robbins advised Mr. Grise that the Madison Circuit Court kept records of suits filed, but that he doubted that they would keep a running total of tax cases filed.
KRS 61.872(4) provides:
If the person to whom the application is directed does not have custody or control of the public record requested, that person shall notify the applicant and shall furnish the name and location of the official custodian of the agency's public records.
In this case, the Office of the Madison County Attorney affirmatively advised that it did not maintain a record of the number of suits filed over the past five years and explained that the Madison Circuit Court kept records of cases filed and may have records containing the information he was seeking. This response was consistent with the requirement of KRS 61.872(4) and did not constitute a violation of the Open Records Act. 1
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.
William P. Grise, M.D.160 Parkwood DriveRichmond, KY 40475-9456
Marc RobbinsMadison County Attorney116 West Main Street, Suite DRichmond, KY 40475
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 In a reply to Mr. Robbins' response, Mr. Grise refers to the County Attorney Contract with the Revenue Cabinet, and notes that the contract requires a quarterly "County Attorney's Report" that shall contain the number of lawsuits filed in the district and circuit courts during the quarterly progress report. He argues that Mr. Robbins "can easily tabulate from his own reports the number of lawsuits filed during the last five years." As noted above, a public agency is not required to compile a record to meet the parameters of a request. A person should be afforded the opportunity to expend his own time and effort in digging out the information which has not to date been compiled unless that information may be excluded from public inspection under KRS 61.878. 96-ORD-33. Accordingly, Mr. Grise could request public records containing the information he seeks and compile the statistics in which he is interested.