Request By:
Mr. Jack C. Blanton
Vice President
Public Affairs
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky 40506
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Carl Miller, Assistant Attorney General
Mr. Thomas L. Conn, 218 Campsie Place, Lexington, Kentucky 40508, has appealed to the Attorney General pursuant to KRS 61.880 your denial of inspection of certain records in your custody. The records are described as follows:
"All statements as to residency and other non-academic documents submitted to the University of Kentucky Fees Committee by students contesting residency classifications based on application of the 'policy on classification of students for fee assessments purposes at state supported institutions of higher education' as adopted July 1, 1975 by the Commonwealth of Kentucky Council on Public Higher Education."
We first considered Mr. Conn's complaint in a letter dated April 1, 1980 in which we approved your withholding of the requested records under KRS 61.878(1)(a) which exempts from inspection records "containing information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitutute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. " Mr. Conn then sought to gain inspection of the records pertaining to Maura Farley Speiser by submitting a written authorization from Ms. Speiser. He was stymied in this effort by an unsigned memorandum under the printed name of "Judith Marshall", dated April 28, 1980, which states:
"Mr. Conn: Our legal staff has advised me that in order to complete your request for inspection of records you need to obtain a notorized signature for (sic) Ms. Speiser."
Mr. Conn then wrote the Attorney General again and we answered him by letter dated June 10, 1980.
In answering Mr. Conn's second letter we did not remember or associate it with the letter which we answered on April 1, 1980. We deplored the tactic of refusing Mr. Conn's request because Ms. Speiser's written authorization was not notorized. But we declined to pass on the merits of the case because we felt we did not have enough information. A third letter from Mr. Conn. dated June 18, 1980, presents a formal appeal under the Open Records Law and we are now issuing a formal opinion as required by KRS 61.880(1).
OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The records in question be the statements made and data furnished by persons applying to be recopnized as in-state residents for the purpose of tuition at the University. Your office denied inspection of the documents on the grounds that they contained information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. We agreed with you in our letter of April 1. 1980, but upon reconsideration we believe that the records were improperly withheld from inspection by Mr. Conn and the public.
As we said in OAG 80-288:
"The privacy exemption of the Open Records Law applies when there is 'a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. ' This wording calls for a weighing of an individual's right of privacy against the public's interest in the transaction involved. We believe that the public's interest and the proper administration of this program outweighs any private interest that a landlord may have. Winehobbies U.S.A. Inc. v. U.S. Internal Revenue Service, 502 F.2d 133 (1974)."
In concluding that the public interest in the administration of the policy on classification of students for fee assessment purposes outweighs the privacy rights of the individual's who have applied for classification as in-state residents, we are influenced by KRS 61.882(4) which reads as follows:
"Courts shall take into consideration a 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 by KRS 61.870-61.884 or otherwise provided for by law shall be strictly construed, even though such examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment to public officials or others."
As provided by KRS 61.880, we are sending a copy of this opinion to the requester. The Attorney General upholds the request for inspection of the described records and as provided by statute the agency may institute proceedings within 30 days for injunctive or declaratory relief in the circuit court. KRS 61.880(5).