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 City of Mayfield properly responded to Ralph Priddy's open records request "to review Capt. Steve Hendley personnel files from Nov. 14, 1993 - 2004." We acknowledge that, based on prior decisions of this office affirming public agency denial of nonspecific requests for personnel records, the City responded in good faith that it is not obligated to honor a nonspecific request for records from a personnel file or to make a determination as to which documents contained in the file are exempt and nonexempt. See OAG 88-53. However, in 03-ORD-012, this office reversed this long line of decisions and held that a request for a complete personnel file of a public employee was sufficiently specific and the public agency was obligated to review the requested personnel file and disclose all nonexempt records contained in the file. Accordingly, we find that pursuant to the holding in 03-ORD-012, Mr. Priddy's request was sufficiently specific to require the City to identify and withhold those documents for which statutory protection exists in the file and to provide him with a written explanation including citation to the statute authorizing nondisclosure and allow inspection of the non-exempt records. KRS 61.880(1); 03-ORD-012.
After receipt of Notification of the appeal, the City provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. In support of its position, the City stated in part:
? Priddy's appeal appears to relate to the City of Mayfield's denial of his request to review a City employee's personnel file. This has been addressed by your office previously in OAG 88-53 where the Office of the Attorney General stated that a personnel folder of a public employee, by its very nature, contains a mixture of documents which are subject to inspection and which may be excluded form public inspection. Your office further stated that a request to inspect personnel documents should be specific as to the kinds of records and documents which are subject to the request and that the requester should not be allowed to use the "shotgun" approach or engage in a fishing expedition.
Because of our recent decision in 03-ORD-012, copy enclosed, we conclude the response of the City to Mr. Priddy's request was inconsistent with the Open Records Act.
In 03-ORD-012, this office departed from a long line of Attorney General decisions that held that public agencies are not obligated to honor a nonspecific request for a personnel record or to determine which documents within the record are exempt and which are nonexempt and held that a request for the complete personnel records of two school district employees was sufficiently specific and that the school district was obligated to locate their records, review their records, and disclose all nonexempt documents in their records to the requester. We further held that the school district was obligated to identify and withhold those exempt documents for which statutory protection exists from the requested personnel records and provide the requester with a written explanation including citation to the statute authorizing nondisclosure. KRS 61.880(1). In explaining our rationale for this departure, we stated:
As noted above, the Attorney General has consistently held that as a precondition to inspection, a requesting party must identify the records to be inspected with sufficient specificity to enable the agency's custodian of records to identify and retrieve the records. Thus, "where the records sought are of an identified, limited class, the requester satisfied this condition." 92-ORD-1261, p. 3. The records to which [the requester] requested access consisted of a limited class, to wit personnel records, and were identified by name, to wit [two school district employees] . It cannot be persuasively argued that the District's custodian could not identify and retrieve these records based on this description. This being the case, we find that it was incumbent on the District to "separate the excepted and made the nonexcepted material available for examination." KRS 61.878(4). To suggest that discharge of this statutory duty was more difficult because the records sought were located in employees' personnel files, as opposed to the wide range of files and possible file locations implicated in our example above, defies logic. We therefore find that a request for access to a personnel file requires no greater degree of specificity than any other open records requests, and that the agency must therefore "determine what is and is not subject to Open Records." Pursuant to KRS 61.878(4), the agency must disclose the nonexcepted records and identify, in writing, any responsive records withheld, site the statute(s) authorizing the withholding, and briefly explain how the statute applies to the record withheld.
03-ORD-012, p. 7.
Accordingly, based upon 03-ORD-012 and the reasoning therein, the City should provide Mr. Priddy with access to those records in the subject City employee's personnel file which are not exempt from disclosure under KRS 61.878(1) or other applicable statutes. For records in the file for which statutory protection from disclosure exists, the agency should identify those documents and provide a brief written explanation including citation to the statute authorizing nondisclosure. KRS 61.880(1); 03-ORD-012.
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.
Ralph Priddy632 N. 15th StreetMayfield, KY 42066
Arthur Byrn, MayorCity of Mayfield211 East BroadwayMayfield, KY 42066
Sam Boyd Neely, Jr.City AttorneyCity of MayfieldP.O. Box 708Mayfield, KY 42066-0708