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 Bardstown ("City") violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of Annette Beavers' requests dated September 25, 2019, and October 1, 2019, regarding the Bardstown historic district. For the reasons that follow, we find no violation of the Act.
Ms. Beavers' letter dated September 25, 2019, styled "Public Records Request," stated: "I need to understand the following if you could please help me out." There followed a list of numbered questions: 1) "Guidelines and Restrictions of the Historical District?" 2) "Where (addresses) when, and why were the original district properties chosen? What are the benefits and restrictions of these original district properties? How?" 3) Where (addresses) when and why were the annexed properties chosen? What are the benefits and restrictions of these annexed properties? How?" 4) "Who is the facilitator/coordinator for the Historical District?" 5) "What is this person's job title, scope of work and qualifications." 6) Greg Ashworths [ sic ] Job Title, cope of work & Qualifications." 7) "Rashae Jennings [ sic ] Job Title, scope of work & Qualifications Hiring Process."
On September 30, 2019, the City made responsive records available to Ms. Beavers, including: position descriptions for Greg Ashworth and RaShae Jennings; Article 15 of the City's Planning & Zoning Ordinance, which contains the guidelines and restrictions for properties in the historic district; and the Bardstown Historic Design Review Manual, used by the Bardstown Historic Review Board in reviewing applications. As to the remaining portions of the request, however, the City stated: "Some of your questions are requests for information, and not for specific records. . .. Therefore we have only put together the documents that were responsive to your requests but the City is not obligated to create documents in response to your requests for information."
We agree that requests for information are outside the scope of open records law, and a public 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 or for compilations of information. 03-ORD-028; 95-ORD-131. Because the City provided the responsive records it possessed, and was not obliged to comply with requests for information, we find no violation of the Open Records Act in regard to the September 25, 2019, request.
Ms. Beavers' request dated October 1, 2019, submitted on a "Request for Open Records" form, asked for the following: 1) "The legal action steps that were taken in order to form the origional [ sic ] Historic District properties." 2) "The legal action steps that were taken in order (start to finish) to annex each property in the annexed portion of the historic district." 3) "The system that is utilized to assure that the origional [ sic ] and the annexed properties as well as the owners are given the same fair & just treatment."
On October 4, 2019, the City responded that it could not comply with the request because it did not contain "a precise description of the public record requested" as required by KRS 61.872(3). The City also reiterated "that a public agency is not obligated to honor a request for information." We agree with the City's disposition, but not with the entirety of its reasoning.
With regard to requests for copies of public records by mail, KRS 61.872(3)(b) provides:
The public agency shall mail copies of the public records to a person whose residence or principal place of business is outside the county in which the public records are located after he precisely describes the public records which are readily available within the public agency.
In this case, however, Ms. Beavers did not specifically request that the City provide copies to her. Accordingly, we review the sufficiency of her request under the standard applicable to requests for onsite inspection of public records, not under the standard of KRS 61.872(3)(b).
KRS 61.872(2), which gives any person the right to inspect public records, does not require a "precise description" of records for onsite inspection, but merely a written application "describing the records to be inspected." Thus, a request for this purpose need only be "adequate for a reasonable person to ascertain the nature and scope of [the] open records request."
Commonwealth v. Chestnut , 250 S.W.3d 655, 661 (Ky. 2008). Even under this standard, however, "blanket requests for information on a particular subject without specifying certain documents need not be honored." 14-ORD-181 (quoting 95-ORD-2). Rather, the person making a request must "describe the records he seeks so as to make locating them reasonably possible."
City of Fort Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer , 406 S.W.3d 842, 855 (Ky. 2013).
We have previously found inadequate many requests for inspection that were more descriptive of records than those at issue here. See, e.g. , 17-ORD-177 ("any documents evidencing that the [Kentucky Horse Racing Commission] has determined that the historical horse racing games (known as Instant Racing, Encore/Exacta and Parimax) are legal under Kentucky law"); 16-ORD-021 ("financial records for the years 2008-2013"); 13-ORD-015 ("any written instrument that exists between [the Spencer County Fire Chief] and any member of [the county clerk's] staff"); 18-ORD-225 ("copy of CPO reflecting postage from [inmate] to [attorney] Larry Simon," where request did not state monetary amount or issue date); 14-ORD-096 ("Detention EOR's and/or disciplinary reports issued to all inmates as a result of the injuries [requester] sustained in the incident that occurred at [Green River Correctional Complex] on May 18, 2013," where request did not identify inmates by name).
In this case, Ms. Beavers asked for "legal action steps that were taken" and "[t]he system that is utilized" to ensure fair treatment. Neither of these terms was adequately descriptive of documents for a reasonable person to ascertain the nature and scope of her request. 1Accordingly, we find that the October 1 request, if not an outright request for information, was at least insufficiently descriptive of the requested records under KRS 61.872(2). Therefore, we conclude that the City did not violate the Open Records Act by failing to honor 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 shall be notified of any action in circuit court, but shall not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceedings.
Footnotes
Footnotes