Request By:
Mr. David A. Lanphear
Bowling Green City Attorney
P.O. Box 1867
324 East Tenth Street
Bowling Green, Kentucky 42101
Opinion
Opinion By: David L. Armstrong, Attorney General; Cicely D. Jaracz, Assistant Attorney General
Mr. Stephen L. Hixson, an attorney representing Mr. Larson B. Hudson, has appealed to the Attorney General pursuant to KRS 61.880 your denial of Mr. Hudson's request to inspect certain City of Bowling Green public records. Specifically, Mr. Hudson requested to inspect city occupational license records in order to obtain the business names and addresses of all city occupational licensees.
Mr. Hudson's request was denied on the basis of Bowling Green Code of Ordinances Sections 2-252(a)(1), (2), and 2-251(5). Section 2-252(a)(2) exempts from public inspection all records disclosed to the city pursuant to city collection of an occupational license fee. Section 2-252(a)(1) is similar to KRS 61.878(1)(a) in exempting "public records containing information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. " Finally, Section 2-251(5) and KRS 61.872(5) exempt "blanket" requests which place an unreasonable burden on the city to produce voluminous public records. The denial states that a list of occupational license holders does not exist and compilation of such a list would involve searching 4,200 files.
OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
It is the opinion of the Attorney General that your denial of Mr. Hudson's request to inspect the names and addresses of city occupational license holders was improper under the Kentucky Open Records law.
As we stated in OAG 78-809 regarding inspection of the business licenses of Lexington:
". . . We know of no statutory reason why the business licenses of Lexington should be withheld from public inspection. The very purpose of a license is to regulate businesses and professions in the interest of the public. We believe that the public is entitled to know what businesses and professions have been licensed to exist and operate within a local governmental unit."
OAG 78-809 thereafter stated that the public should be allowed access to business license records insofar as they reveal which individuals and businesses are licensed. Additionally, OAG 82-2 stated that the dates of applications and issuances of business licenses are available to the public. And in OAG 81-309 we held that the public is allowed access to the names of businesses which are delinquent in paying occupational taxes.
Therefore, it is our opinion that Mr. Hudson should be allowed to inspect the City of Bowling Green occupational licenses to obtain business names and addresses. And as stated above, prior opinions also allow access to the dates of license application and issuance, as well as to the identity of businesses delinquent in paying occupational taxes.
This opinion does not appear to conflict with Bowling Green Code of Ordinances Section 2-252(a)(2), upon which you partially based your denial. The public is not entitled to know information about a license which is made expressly confidential. OAG 82-2. Therefore records disclosed to the city in order to obtain an occupational license or collect a license fee, such as social security numbers and federal identification numbers, would still be confidential and exempt from public access. Information which reveals the affairs of the business, such as profits, taxes, deductions, and salaries, would also be exempted.
Your denial was also partially based on Bowling Green Code of Ordinances Section 2-252(a)(1) and KRS 61.878(1)(a) which exempt from public inspection those records containing personal information the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. An occupational license is a temporary grant of special privilege by the local government. As such, it is our opinion that public access to the information contained in the license, such as business name and address, is not an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. This is especially true in light of the statement in your denial to the effect that business names and addresses "may be gleaned from a number of readily available sources, including the telephone directory, city directory, and even the individual businesses themselves." Additionally, we wish to point out that the requestor is not required under the Open Records law to have a legitimate or public purpose for inspection. OAG 79-275.
Your denial also stated that, should the requested information be subject to disclosure, access would still be denied pursuant to Bowling Green Code of Ordinances Section 2-251(5) and KRS 61.872(5) which allow denial if the request is a "blanket" request and places an unreasonable burden on the city to produce voluminous public records. You further state that a list of occupational licensees and their business addresses does not exist and would have to be compiled from 4,200 files.
First, we are of the opinion that Mr. Hudson's request is not a "blanket" request. He has specified certain information from a specific document. OAG 76-375. Second, this office has often said that an agency is not required to compile a list when one does not already exist, and the compiling of such a list is within agency discretion. However, should your occupational license records be computerized, and, due to the mandate of KRS 61.878(3) which requires exempted material to be separated from non-exempted material in order to allow public inspection, it may be more expedient for the city to compile a list rather than allow the public to peruse the records in compiling their own list. Additionally, OAG 79-275 stated that an advantage to the city's compilation of their own list is that the city may sell the list and include the cost of staff required to prepare the list in the sale price. Exempted material can also be separated from non-exempted material in compiling the list. However, OAG 79-275 also stated that an agency may adopt a policy against preparing a list in order to discourage "junk mail." In that instance, the requestor should be allowed to compile his own list from agency records.
It is therefore the opinion of the Attorney General that Mr. Hudson should be allowed to inspect the occupational licenses of the City of Bowling Green. Mr. Hudson has requested access in order to obtain business names and addresses which are not exempted from public inspection under the Open Records Law. The city can compile a list of these licensees in its discretion, or allow Mr. Hudson to make his own list. The city may also separate exempted from non-exempted matter before allowing Mr. Hudson access to these records.
As directed by statute, a copy of this opinion is being sent to the requestor. Should you decide not to comply with this opinion, you may initiate further proceedings pursuant to KRS 61.880(5).