Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; James M. Herrick, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
At issue in this appeal is whether the Labor Cabinet violated the Kentucky Open Records Act in the disposition of requests from Robert L. Chambless, Jr., as Chairman of the Board of the Hart County Bank and Trust Company, dated July 16, 2013, and August 12, 2013. We find no violation of the Act.
Mr. Chambless' first letter, addressed to Cabinet Secretary Larry L. Roberts, read as follows:
I have enclosed a letter from your employee, Robert Ragle, as well as a letter with enclosures to him for your review.
Since nothing has been said regarding the bank's name change in the past 34 years, we are confident that something precipitated his visit. Please provide us with the name, capacity, address, and telephone number of the individual or individuals responsible for the actions by your employee.
A two-page reply letter from Commissioner Dwight T. Lovan, Department of Workers' Claims, dated July 29, 2013, gave a thorough explanation of the matters raised by Mr. Chambless. The second letter from Mr. Chambless, in pertinent part, states:
I again request under the Open Records Legislation to know exactly how this fiasco got started, and as you know, my next request will have to be to the Attorney General's Office to obtain this information. I base my request on the failure of state employee Ragle to state a basis for the initiation of this matter.
A reply from Commissioner Lovan dated August 26, 2013, stated, "Since my first letter to you explains how this matter was initiated and what triggered Officer Ragle's visit, I believe we have provided a thorough explanation and met all requirements of the Kentucky Open Records Law."
Mr. Chambless initiated an appeal to the Attorney General on September 6, 2013. On September 12, 2013, Labor Cabinet General Counsel Charles E. Lowther replied that the Department of Workers' Claims had "responded fully to the request for information from Mr. Chambless" and that "nor further action was, or is, required." We believe that the Labor Cabinet, in fact, did much more than was required under the Act.
Requests for information are outside the scope of open records law and an agency is not obligated to honor a request for information under the law. 02-ORD-88; KRS 61.870 et seq. The Kentucky Open Records Act addresses requests for records, not requests for information. 03-ORD-028. At page 2 of 95-ORD-131, the Attorney General observed:
Requests for information, as distinguished from records, are outside of the scope of the open records provisions. See, e.g., OAG 89-77. Our position is premised on the notion that "[o]pen records provisions address only inspection of records . . . [and] do not require public agencies or officials to provide or compile specific information to conform to the parameters of a given request.
Accordingly, we find no violation of the Open Records Act.
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:
Mr. Robert L. Chambless, Jr.Charles E. Lowther, Esq.Hon. Larry L. RobertsCommissioner Dwight T. Lovan