Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear,Attorney General;James M. Herrick,Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the City of Martin ("City") violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of Terry Thornsberry's January 29, 2019, request for a copy of the City's code of ordinances. For the reasons that follow, we find that the City both procedurally and substantively violated the Act.
Mr. Thornsberry included in his appeal, which this office received on February 13, 2019, a copy of his request bearing an initialed notation that the City had received his open records request on January 29, 2019, at 1:42 p.m. Mr. Thornsberry stated that he received no written response from the city. Furthermore, the city has made no response to this appeal. We find that the City of Martin committed a procedural violation of KRS 61.880(1) by failing to provide a written response to Mr. Thornsberry's request within three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays.
On February 22, 2019, we granted the City an extension of time until the morning of February 25, 2019, to respond to Mr. Thornsberry's appeal. On the afternoon of February 25, 2019, having received no response, we again contacted the City Attorney, James D. Adams, II, who stated that he would respond as soon as possible. This office did not receive a response to the appeal. KRS 61.880(1) requires a public agency to provide a written explanation of the legal basis for withholding any public records. Since the City never provided any records, 1 any explanation for its failure to do so, or, indeed, a written response of any kind, we conclude that it committed both procedural and substantive violations of the Open Records Act. 13-ORD-206; 15-ORD-171.
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 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
1 We note that pursuant to KRS 61.872(3), since Mr. Thornsberry requested records from within his county of residence, the City "could lawfully require him to inspect the records in person" at city hall and obtain his copies there, as opposed to sending him copies by mail. 15-ORD-195; 14-ORD-198; see also 09-ORD-173 and authorities cited therein. This does not, however, excuse the city from its obligation to respond to an open records request in writing.