Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear,Attorney General;Michelle D. Harrison,Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
Christie Bluhm initiated this appeal by letter dated September 29, 2016, challenging the denial by the Union County Sheriff's Office of her September 8, 2016, request ("Open Records inquiries") for the "following information" regarding the Earle C. Clements Job Corps Center:
1. . . . a list of sexually-based offenses with dates of the incidents that occurred on this campus that were reported to your dept. during the last two years. Also, what were the outcomes in these cases? How many were minors? Are any of the backlogged rape kits to be tested this month related to Earle C. Clements Job Corps Center students?
2. Have you ever had any complaints from students who are of legal age who voluntarily signed up for Job Corps but were not allowed to leave the program or had a hard time leaving? If so, please provide dates, issues, and any other information about the complaint you are legally able to provide.
3. I would like to find out if the U.S. Justice Dept. has ever been contacted by your dept. regarding any information you obtained regarding the Earle C. Clements Job Corps Center (in the time since it opened). If so, when and what were the concerns, outcomes.
4. Have you been contacted by anyone regarding inquiries I've made elsewhere? If so, please provide any correspondence regarding me.
By letter dated September 23, 2016, eleven business days later, Union County Sheriff Mickey Arnold advised Ms. Bluhm that the Open Records Act "does not require the Union County Sheriff's Office to answer your inquiries." In relevant part, KRS 61.880(1) provides that a public agency, upon receipt of a request made under the Open Records Act, "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." Insofar as the Sheriff's Office failed to issue a written response within three business days per KRS 61.880(1), the Sheriff's Office violated the Open Records Act from a procedural standpoint; however, existing legal authority validates the basis for its denial.
Early on, this office clarified that "[t]he purpose of the Open Records Law is not to provide information, but to provide access to public records which are not exempt by law." OAG 79-547, p. 2; 04-ORD-144. For this reason, the Attorney General has consistently held that requests for information as opposed to requests for public records, "need not be honored." 00-ORD-76, p. 3, citing OAG 76-375; 04-ORD-080. In addressing this question, the Attorney General has long recognized that "obviously information will be obtained from an inspection of the records and documents but the duty imposed upon public agencies under the Act is to make public documents available for inspection and copying. " 04-ORD-080, p. 13 (citation omitted). Public agencies are not required under the Act to gather and supply information independent of that which is set forth in public records. Id. "The public has a right to inspect public documents and to obtain whatever [nonexempt] information is contained in them but the primary impact of the Open Records Act is to make records available for inspection and copying and not to require the gathering and supplying of information." Id.
Simply put, "what the public gets is what . . . [the public agency has] and in the format in which . . . [the agency has] it." Id. p. 5, OAG 91-12, p. 5. A review of the statutory language upon which these decisions are premised, including KRS 61.871 (providing that "free and open examination of public records is in the public interest"), KRS 61.872(1) (providing that "[a]ll public records shall be open for inspection by any person"), and KRS 61.872(2) (providing that "[a]ny person shall have the right to inspect public records ") (emphasis added), validates this position. In other words, the Sheriff's Office is not statutorily required to answer questions, or comply with a request which is properly characterized as a request for information, such as that of Ms. Bluhm. 1 See 11-ORD-007; 14-ORD-073; 16-ORD-003. With the exception of the noted procedural violation, the denial by the Sheriff's Office is affirmed.
Either party may appeal this decision by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court per 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General must 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