Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; James M. Herrick, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Transportation Cabinet violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of a request made by Robin L. Browning to inspect records relating to road improvements. For the reasons that follow, we find that the Cabinet's response was partially in violation of the Act.
In her request dated March 9, 2012, which was addressed to Erika Katrina Smith, EIT, District 11, Ms. Browning requested the following records:
1. All surveys conducted on all properties related to the expansion or improvement to U.S. Highway 119 in Harlan County, Kentucky.
2. A copy of all the minutes of any meetings to approve the study of the expansion and/or improvements to U.S. Highway 119 in Harlan County, Kentucky.
3. A copy of any documents showing that funds have been appropriated to expand and/or improve U.S. Highway 119 in Harlan County, Kentucky.
4. Any and all other documents related to expansion and/or improvement to U.S. Highway 119, Harlan County, Kentucky.
Ms. Browning claims that she never received a response to her request. In answering this appeal, the Transportation Cabinet has attached documents showing that it received the request on March 15, 2012, and issued a written response on March 21, 2012. Even so, however, the response was issued one day outside the three (3) business days allowed by KRS 61.880(1).
The March 21 response, signed by Cabinet Records Custodian Ann Stansel, states in part:
Enclosed please find documents reflecting funds appropriated to expand and/or improve US Highway 119 in Harlan County, as requested. The requested survey data and meeting minutes are included in the US 119 Corridor Study Summary of Findings and Recommendations prepared for the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet by Parson Brinckerhoff. This publication is available online at [Internet address given].
With regard to numerical request 3, according to the documentation provided, the Cabinet substantively complied with the Open Records Act. As to requests 1 and 2, the Attorney General has previously noted that "the Open Records Act generally contemplates records access by means of onsite inspection or receipt of copies through the mail. " 05-ORD-050, p. 2, n.1. Inspection on a website "is not [a method] that the Open Records Act specifically contemplates. " 09-ORD-026, p. 4. Therefore, a public agency that offers Internet inspection of records as the only option "cannot be said to have discharged its statutory duty under the Act." 09-ORD-077, p. 6. The Transportation Cabinet was obliged to provide Ms. Browning with an actual copy of the requested records.
In responding to request 4, the general request for "[a]ny and all other documents related to expansion and/or improvement to" Highway 119 in Harlan County, the Cabinet stated that the request was insufficiently specific, but that particular documents could be requested if desired. Regarding requests to receive copies by mail, KRS 61.872(3)(b) provides, in pertinent part:
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.
(Emphasis added.) "[T]he primary purpose of the [Open Records] Act is making records available for public inspection. ? If a requester cannot describe the documents he wishes to inspect with sufficient specificity there is no requirement that the public agency conduct a search for such material." 95-ORD-108. "A request must be specific enough so that a public agency can identify and locate the records in question." OAG 89-8. "A description is sufficiently precise for purposes of records access by mail if it describes the records in definite, specific, and unequivocal terms." 98-ORD-17 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, we have often held that "blanket requests for information on a particular subject need not be honored." OAG 90-83; see also 95-ORD-108 and opinions cited therein. Thus, we held that a request to the City of Louisville for "all items pertaining to UPS and the airport expansion" was properly denied for lack of particularity. OAG 91-58 (emphasis omitted). Similarly, a request for "[a]ll memoranda, correspondence and/or documentation of whatever kind and nature regarding [a certain employee] not included in her personnel file" was insufficiently specific. OAG 90-83. Since Ms. Browning's fourth request did not describe records by type, date range, origin, or any identifier other than relation to a subject, the Transportation Cabinet did not violate the Open Records Act by requiring greater specificity. Therefore, the Cabinet substantively complied with the Act as to requests 3 and 4, but not as to requests 1 and 2.
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 proceedings. Distribution:Robin L. Browning, Esq.J. Todd Shipp, Esq.Ms. Ann Stansel