Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear,Attorney General;Amye L. Bensenhaver,Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the City of Taylorsville violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of Lawrence Trageser's January 12, 2016, request for access to "the personnel file of newly hired police officer Raque" and "documents reflecting the numerical count, type of, and total costs of all shotguns purchased for the Taylorsville Police Department" following the chief's proposal at the city's October regular meeting. On January 12, the city notified Mr. Trageser that the shotgun records were available for inspection during regular business hours. In the same letter, the city postponed final action on his request for Officer Raque's personnel file. The city explained that the file "may contain information that is exempt under KRS 61.878" and was therefore being forwarded to the city attorney for review. The city indicated that it would provide Mr. Trageser with a response "by 4:00 p.m., January 25, 2016." The city issued a final response on January 22, advising Mr. Trageser that Officer Raque's file, with the exception of "some . . . documents contain[ing] information that is exempt under KRS 61.878(1)(a)," was available for inspection. 1
KRS 61.880(1) provides:
Each public agency, upon any request for records made under KRS 61.870 to 61.884, shall determine within three (3) days, excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with the request and shall notify in writing the person making the request, within the three (3) day period, of its decision. An agency response denying, in whole or in part, inspection of any record shall include a statement of the specific exception authorizing the withholding of the record and a brief explanation of how the exception applies to the record withheld . The response shall be issued by the official custodian or under his authority, and it shall constitute final agency action.
(Emphasis added.) The city originally notified Mr. Trageser that the requested record "may contain information that is exempt under KRS 61.878." In its final response, the city advised Mr. Trageser that the responsive records disclosed "contain information that is exempt under KRS 61.878(1)(a)." The city withheld, without identifying, that information. To this extent, the response was deficient. In response to this office's inquiry, the city explained that it withheld "[f]ingerprints plus personal phone number, email address, social security number, login and passwords, member ID, account numbers, Tax ID # s, drug test results, document numbers , withholding amounts on W2, driver's license number, birth certificate file number, and fingerprints [sic]." The city failed to define the term "document numbers" or explain, in general, how KRS 61.878(1)(a) applied to that information. These omissions constituted a violation of KRS 61.880(1).
Either party may appeal this decision 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