Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the actions of the Pulaski County Schools violated the Open Records Act relative to the request of Olivia Minton for certain personnel records of the school system. For the reasons that follow, we find no violation of the Act.
In a letter dated October 21, 2008, to Tim Eaton, Superintendent, Pulaski County Schools, Ms. Minton requested the following records:
1. All names, positions and salary budgeted for each "Central Office" employ for the 2008-2009 school year.
2. ? any new positions added after the district directory was printed.
3. ? a copy of the superintendent's contract and the total salary and benefits for the position.
By letter dated October 24, 2008, Superintendent Eaton responded to Ms. Minton's request. Addressing requests 1 and 2, he advised:
This information does not exist in the form that you have requested the information and pursuant to Kentucky law and prior decisions of the Kentucky Attorney General, we are not required to compile this information for you in response to an Open Records request; we are not required to prepare documents that do not exist. You are welcome to inspect documents that do exist in the Central Office during regular business hours (8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday).
In response to request number 3, he advised that the Superintendent's contract would be made available for her inspection and copying at the Central Office during regular business hours and copies would be made for her at $ .10 per page.
Shortly thereafter Ms. Minton initiated the instant appeal, requesting "review of the denial" of her request.
After receipt of notification of the appeal, Larry G. Bryson, counsel for the Pulaski County Schools provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. In his response, he stated that the school system had not denied the request; had advised her that information requested in requests 1 and 2 did not exist in the form she requested and had agreed to make school records available for her inspection at the Central Office.
As Mr. Bryson correctly observes, the Pulaski County Schools did not deny Ms. Minton's request for records containing pertinent information but instead afforded her the opportunity to conduct an on-site inspection of the records to locate the information she was seeking. This action was consistent with the requirements found at KRS 61.872(3) which provides:
(3) A person may inspect the public records:
(a) During the regular office hours of the public agency; or
(b) By receiving copies of the public records from the public agency through the mail. The public agency shall mail copies of the public records to a person whose residence or principal place of business is outside the county in which the public records are located after he precisely describes the public records which are readily available within the public agency. If the person requesting the public records requests that copies of the records be mailed, the official custodian shall mail the copies upon receipt of all fees and the cost of mailing.
As this office has so often observed, the Open Records Act contemplates records access by one of two means: on-site inspection during the regular office hours of the agency, in suitable facilities provided by the agency, or receipt of the records from the agency through the mail upon prepayment of copying and postage costs. A requester like Ms. Minton, who resides in the same county where the records are located, may be required to inspect the records prior to receiving copies. The Pulaski County Schools could, therefore, require Ms. Minton to conduct an on-site inspection of the records prior to furnishing her with copies of the records she seeks.
Moreover, with respect to Ms. Minton's requests 1 and 2, the school system advised that the information she requested did not exist in the form that she requested but agreed to make its records available for her inspection so that she might compile the information she was seeking.
In 96-ORD-251, this office stated:
This office has 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 79-547; OAG 81-333; OAG 86-51; OAG 90-101; 93-ORD-50. At page 2 of 93-ORD-50, we observed:
[T]he Kentucky 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.
Simply stated, "[W]hat the public gets is what . . . [the public agency has] and in the format in which . . . [the agency has] it." OAG 91-12, p. 5.
Thus, the Open Records Act does not require the school system to compile a list of the information Ms. Minton requests nor to conduct research or search its records for the information she seeks. The agency has complied with the Act by making its records available to Ms. Minton for her inspection so that she can search for the information she seeks. Thus, we conclude that the school system's response as to requests 1 and 2 was proper and in accordance with the Act and prior decisions of this office.
Addressing Ms. Minton's request 3 for a copy of the Superintendent's contract and total salary and benefits for the position, Mr. Bryson advised:
Superintendent Eaton's response to this request was that the contract would be made available for inspection and copying at the Central Office, again giving the office hours, days, and the cost of copying.
Ms. Minton failed to mention that she did come to the Central Office and inspected records. 1 Superintendent Eaton's contracts and addendums are a part of the Pulaski County Board Minute Book following the dates on which the Board took action on the contracts. Ms. Minton did not specify which contract she wished to inspect, so all the Minute Books were made available to her. Superintendent Eaton's contracts and addendums (the addendums contain "roll over" provisions of his contract) were all made available to Ms. Minton, but are a part of the Board Minute Book and she was told this. She was provided all the Minute Books which contain all of Superintendent Eaton's contracts and addendums. . . .
As noted above, the Pulaski County Schools complied with the Open Records Act by making the records requested in request 3 available for Ms. Minton's inspection. Accordingly, we find no violation of the Open Records Act in this regard.
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.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 When Ms. Minton came to the Central Office she asked to review the contracts of Superintendent Eaton and was provided the Board Minute Books that contained all of Superintendent Eaton's contracts and addendums which contained the information of "salary and benefits of the position." After she viewed one contract, she stated that she would get the information another way" and left the Board office in an abrupt manner and made no inquiry of the information requested in Request 1 and 2; the documents containing some of the information she sought in Request 1 and 2 was made available for her inspection on that same date, but she made no effort to inspect those various documents.