Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway,Attorney General;James M. Herrick,Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
At issue in this appeal is whether the City of West Buechel violated the Kentucky Open Records Act in the disposition of Rev. Russell's letter of June 25, 2015. We find no violation of the Act. The June 25 letter, addressed to the City Clerk and invoking "FOIA," consisted of the following questions:
1] Is West Buechel a six (6) class city? If not what class of city is it? Where do the police officers and code enforcement officer powers end?
2] What is Rick Nelson's badge number? He is listed as a code enforcement officer, So [ sic ] why does he carry a gun? What is his training and where was he trained?
3] What is the policy for the public to record or take pictures of West Buechel police?
Are West Buechel officers suppose [ sic ] to follow all local and state traffic and parking laws? Do officers carry body cams?
4] The request is the name and badge number of each officer with any powers for the City of West Buechel.
The request is for how long each officer has been with West Buechel and what is their training for the job?
Having received no reply to these inquiries, Mr. Tyler appealed to the Attorney General. His appeal was received in this office on September 9, 2015.
On examination of the June 25 letter, we judge it to be a request for information rather than a request for records. 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 substantive violation of the Open Records Act.
Nevertheless, the city committed a procedural violation of KRS 61.880(1) by failing to respond to a communication that identified itself as a "FOIA" (Freedom of Information Act) request, even though the proper terminology would have been "open records." KRS 61.880(1) requires a public agency to issue a written response within three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, stating whether it will or will not comply with a request. Notwithstanding the fact that the June 25 letter does not require the city to produce any records, a written response was still required. Cf . 93-ORD-125 (procedural provisions of the Open Records Act are mandatory). Thus, the city procedurally violated the Act by failing to make a written disposition of the request.
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.