Request By:
Mr. William Armstrong
Superintendent
Bellevue Independent School District
215 Center Street
Bellevue, Kentucky 41073
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Carl Miller, Assistant Attorney General
Mr. Richard Rothfuss has appealed to the Attorney General under KRS 61.880 the denial of inspection of certain public records by you as Superintendent of the Bellevue Independent School District. The records are described as the records of all teachers and administrators on extended employment from 1973 thru the 1979-80 school year, the number of days or weeks worked (extended beyond the 185-day school year) and the amount of money paid to each person for this extended employment; the records of the length of time of the administrators' contracts but not including the extended employment.
By letter of June 22, 1979 we requested that you send a copy of the above described records to this office in order that we might issue an opinion as to whether they were properly withheld. You answered by letter dated June 26, 1979 stating that you had not denied Mr. Rothfuss access to any records. You also stated, "The last time Mr. Rothfuss was in I made the minute books available to him which to me should be sufficient." You declined to send us the records we requested and you did not state that the records do not exist.
We think that you are mistaken in your conclusion that it was sufficient to allow Mr. Rothfuss to inspect the minute books. KRS 61.870 defines public records as follows:
"(2) 'Public Records' means all books, papers, maps, photographs, cards, tapes, disks, recordings or other documentary materials regardless of physical form or characteristics, which are prepared, owned, used, in the possession of or obtained by a public agency."
If the records Mr. Rothfuss has requested as described above exist, you should either allow him to inspect them or you should state a statutory reason why the records are exempt from inspection.
In your refusal to send us the records you state:
"As far as I am concerned, there is no point at issue and I would request evidence be provided, other than simply a statement by an antagonistic former employee, that the records had been denied."
The only evidence we need is that which may be supplied by you. If you tell us that the records do not exist, that ends the matter as far as we are concerned. If you tell us that the records are exempt and give us a reason, we will issue an opinion as to whether we believe you are correct. If our opinion disagrees with yours, you may apply to the Circuit Court within 30 days to overrule our opinion. KRS 61.880(5). We have no power except to give an opinion. If the requester is not satisfied, he may at any time go into the Circuit Court for relief. If the Court decides that the agency has not acted in good faith and has improperly withheld a public record, it may award the requester a sum of not more than $25 a day against the agency which wrongfully withheld the public record. KRS 61.882(5).
As to Mr. Ruthfuss being "an antagonistic former employee" , experience has shown that it is often a person who is antagonistic, disgruntled, suspicious, one who suspects that something is being covered up who requests to inspect public records. Evidentally, the Legislature, in passing the Open Records Law, intended that such persons should be accommodated by public agencies. The statute expressly states:
"Courts shall take into consideration the basic policy of KRS 61.870-61.884 that free and open examination of public records is in the public interest and the exceptions provided for KRS 61.870 to 61.884 or otherwise provided for by law shall be strictly construed, even though such examination may cause inconvenience or embarassment to public officials or others." KRS 61.882(4)
It is the opinion of the Attorney General that you have thus far not adequately responded to the request of Mr. Rothfuss under the Open Records Law.