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 City of Burnside relative to the open records request of Art Anderson violated the Open Records Act. For the reasons that follow, we conclude the actions of the City were consistent in part and inconsistent in part with the Act.
By letter dated September 8, 2005, Mr. Anderson submitted an open records request to the City, requesting the production of:
All of the records regarding the annexing of federal government owned Lake Cumberland property.
In a letter dated September 12, 2005, Cecil Goff, Jr., City Clerk/Treasurer denied Mr. Anderson's request stating it was "vague and overly broad. " Mr. Goff further advised:
For further consideration of your request, please identify which documents or information you are requesting and we will gladly re-evaluate your request. In the meantime, please be aware that the ordinance and map is available at the Burnside City Hall for review.
Shortly thereafter, by letter dated September 19, 2005, Mr. Anderson initiated the instant appeal.
Our review begins with the City's response to Mr. Anderson that Mr. Anderson's request is vague and overly broad.
As the Attorney General has consistently recognized, the degree of specificity required of a requester seeking to conduct an on-site inspection of public records as opposed to a requester seeking to receive copies of public records through the mail, is less exacting. 00-ORD-235; 97-ORD-46; 95-ORD-108. In 97-ORD-46, this office made the following observation relative to the burden assumed by the latter type of requester:
KRS 61.872(3)(b) places an additional burden on requesters who wish to access public records by receipt of copies through the mail. Whereas KRS 61.872(2) requires, generally, that the requester "describe" the records which he wishes to access by on-site inspection, KRS 61.872(3)(b) requires the requester to "precisely describe" the records which he wishes to access by mail. In construing KRS 61.872(2), this office has observed:
. . .
A description is precise if it is "clearly stated or depicted," Webster's II, New Riverside Dictionary 926 (1988); "strictly defined accurately stated; definite, " Webster's New World Dictionary 1120 (2d ed. 1974); and "devoid of anything vague, equivocal or uncertain." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1784 (1963). We believe that a requester satisfies the second requirement of KRS 61.872(3)(b) if he describes in definite, specific, and unequivocal terms the records he wishes to access by mail.
Id., pp. 2, 3. Because Mr. Anderson has requested for production of or to inspect the records, his request does not have to satisfy this higher standard but, rather, must only describe the records requested with "reasonable particularity" in accordance with the cited authorities.
The records for which Mr. Anderson seeks production were identified as "all of the records regarding the annexing of federal government owned Lake Cumberland property." Although this request is broad and this office has previously criticized "open ended any-and-all-records-that-relate" to particular subject types of requests in 96-ORD-101 and 99-ORD-14, we find that the records requested in the instant appeal are of an identified and limited class of records, i.e., annexation of federally owned Lake Cumberland property, to enable the City to locate and produce the records for inspection. See, 04-ORD-028. Our finding is supported by the fact that the City has not indicated that the records requested are of great volume or that it would impose an unreasonable burden to locate records related to the annexation. For example, the City has advised Mr. Anderson, in response to his request for records relating to the annexation, that the ordinance and map are available at the Burnside City Hall for review. This response was consistent with requirements of the Act.
Accordingly, to the extent that the City failed to make records relating to the subject matter of Mr. Anderson's request available for his inspection, its actions were inconsistent with the Open Records Act. We encourage Mr. Anderson and the City to work toward an amicable resolution of this dispute. Mr. Anderson, by framing his request with greater specificity and the City by continuing to exhibit a spirit of cooperation.
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.