Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
This matter is before the Attorney General on appeal from the City of Glencoe's disposition of Steve Perkins' open record request. The record on appeal contains insufficient proof of actual delivery and receipt of that request, dated May 21, 2012, and addressed to Glencoe City Clerk Veronica Chapman. 1 We are therefore unable to conclusively determine whether the City of Glencoe violated KRS 61.880(1) by failing to respond to the request. Mr. Perkins maintains that he mailed his request on May 26, 2012, but had received no response as of June 2, 2012. The city acknowledges the recent receipt of "a myriad of written complaints" from Mr. Perkins, but denies receipt of an open records request, attaching Ms. Chapman's affidavit in support. These conflicting factual narratives preclude resolution of the issue on appeal.
In correspondence directed to this office after Mr. Perkins filed his open records appeal, the city advised that he would be permitted to inspect city records during the city's regular business hours, and charged ten cents per page for copies, if and/or when he submits an open records request to the city. Mr. Perkins offered no empirical evidence to support his claim that he mailed his request on May 26, but a copy of the request was attached to his letter of appeal. In it, he requested access to various records relating to the Shelter House Renovation. None of the requested records fall within an exception to the Open Records Act.
The Attorney General is not equipped to resolve a factual dispute concerning the actual delivery and receipt of Mr. Perkins' open records request. Although he maintains that the request was mailed to the city, Mr. Perkins offers no proof of delivery, such as a return receipt from a certified letter. 2 The city clerk, on the other hand, asserts that the request did not reach the city and that there is no record of receipt. If Mr. Perkins' request did not reach the city, for whatever reason, that agency should not be faulted for its failure to respond. KRS 61.880(1); 02-ORD-109; 02-ORD-226.
The city has agreed to make the records identified in Mr. Perkins' request available for inspection and copying. Having received a copy of that request, along with notification of receipt of his appeal, we see no reason why access should be further delayed. We trust that the city will locate, retrieve, and make available for Mr. Perkins' inspection the records identified in his request within three business days of receipt of this decision. Issues that arise in the course of his inspection, if any, may be raised in a separate open records appeal.
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.
Distributed to:
Steve PerkinsVeronica ChapmanAlecia Hubbard
Footnotes
Footnotes