Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear, Attorney General; J. Marcus Jones, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
Summary : The Trigg County Property Value Administrator did not violate the Open Records Act when it declined to respond to a request for copies and cost estimates that the requester did not submit in writing.
Open Records Decision
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the Trigg County Property Value Administrator ("PVA") violated the Open Records Act when it failed to respond to Sue Eggleston's ("Appellant's") verbal requests for copies of records and a cost estimate for copies. For the reasons stated below, we find that the PVA did not violate the Act.
On May 16, 2018, Appellant submitted an appeal with this Office. Appellant states in her appeal that,
I requested examination of All Open Records on May 4, 2018, from Mr. Michael T, Bryan, Trigg Co. PVA. I verbally asked for an estimate to have copies made and to send this estimate by letter to me...I was told he would let me know in 30 days. According to THE OPEN RECORDS ACT, He is supposed to notify me within three business days...As of this letter, I have not received any communication from Mr. Bryan.
Appellant attached a copy of her written open records request to the appeal 1 . However, the record shows that Appellant did not submit a written request for copies and a cost estimate prior to filing this appeal.
On May 30, 2018, the PVA responded to the Appeal. The PVA notes that the office staff provided Appellant access to the records she requested in printed form and through an office computer. The response also states that the PVA "offered her a convenient room open to the public to make inspection of those records." Regarding the verbal requests Appellant made during her office visit, the PVA states "[d]iscussions between my office and Ms. Eggleston related to copies and cost of copies is beyond the scope of her written open-record request to inspect. "
The PVA did not violate the Act when it declined to respond to Appellant's unwritten request for copies and a cost estimate. KRS 61.872(2) 2!! provides that "[t]he official custodian may require written application, signed by the applicant and with his name printed legibly on the application, describing the records to be inspected. " In analyzing this language, the Attorney General has observed that:
A public agency cannot demand or require more in regard to a request to inspect public records than is required by KRS 61.872(2). The public agency may require, if it desires to do so, that a request or application be in writing.
94-ORD-101, p. 3. S ee also OAG 76-588, p. 2 ("Public agencies may put into their regulations the requirement for written application ..."). We have found that adherence to this requirement is a benefit to both the public agency and the person requesting records. See 96-ORD-46, p. 3 (finding that without a written record documenting these exchanges, this office is severely handicapped in its disposition of an open records appeal); also see 07-ORD-048, p. 3 (Discrepancies and misunderstandings inherent to oral open records transactions are quickly resolved by an incontestable written record) .
In the instant case, we are unable to determine which, if any, of the records inspected Appellant was seeking to copy. Appellant notes that the PVA did not provide a written response denying copies, as required by KRS 61.880(1) 3!! . However, the public agency's duty to "notify in writing the person making the request" is triggered by a request for records that complies with the requirements of KRS 61.872(2). Without a written request for copies, we cannot find that the PVA violated KRS 61.880. Accordingly, we find that the PVA did not violate the Act when it declined to respond to Appellant's unwritten requests. We encourage the parties to continue to work together to resolve any issues and misunderstandings regarding the exchange of the public records in the possession of the PVA.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court per KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General shall be notified of any action in circuit court, but shall not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.
Footnotes
Footnotes