Request By:
Alfred G. Adams, Jr.
Director of Personnel
Jefferson County Office
of Personnel Management
517 Court Place - Room 301
Louisville, Kentucky 40202-3305
Opinion
Opinion By: David L. Armstrong, Attorney General; Thomas R. Emerson, Assistant Attorney General
David Leightty, Esq., of the City of Louisville Department of Law has appealed to the Attorney General pursuant to KRS 61.880 your denial of the request of Belinda Lawrence, Deputy Director, Personnel and Employee Relations, City of Louisville, to inspect certain public records in your custody. They both describe the documents in question as the "County's Position Control Report."
In your letter to Ms. Lawrence, dated May 25, 1985, you advised her that the request for the most recent "Position Control Report" of County Government is denied. You based your decision on KRS 61.878(1)(a) which provides that public records containing information of a personal nature where public disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy are exempt from the Open Records Act and subject to inspection only upon an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
In his letter to this Office, Mr. Leightty maintains that a "Position Control Report" is nothing but an abstract from the current county budget. "The information on a position control report is, essentially, a listing of all budgeted employment slots or positions, the amount budgeted for each slot or position, and the identity of the individual (if any) employed in the slot or position." He denies that a "Position Control Report" contains any information of a personal nature and submits that everything on it is a matter of public record and subject to disclosure under the Open Records Act.
Opinion of the Attorney General
Your letter does not set forth what a "Position Control Report" involves and exactly what it is that makes such a document subject to the privacy exemption [KRS 61.878(1)(a)] of the Open Records Act which you did cite in your letter. Mr. Leightty in his letter did deal with what a "Position Control Report" is and he maintains that it is merely a listing of all budgeted employment positions, the amount budgeted for each position and the identity of the person employed in that position.
In OAG 84-217, copy enclosed, we said that a budget is a public record and open to public inspection. Previous budgets and current budgets are both open to public inspection, as previous budgets have lost any "preliminary" quality by being closed and current budgets are "working" budgets indicative of final action. For the same reasons budget ordinances would also be open to public inspection.
In OAG 84-161, copy enclosed, we dealt with a request to inspect pay records and time sheets of public employees. The public agency maintained that such documents were private. This Office said that KRS 61.878(1)(a) was not applicable to time spent in public service which is compensated by public funds and for which the public employee is accountable. Obviously a public employee's entire personnel file is not open to public inspection, but as we said in OAG 82-233, copy enclosed, the public is entitled to know the name, position, work station and salary of government employees.
Another statutory provision which is applicable to this particular situation (a request for information by one governmental agency to another) is KRS 61.878(4) which provides:
"The provisions of this section shall in no way prohibit or limit the exchange of public records or the sharing of information between public agencies when the exchange is serving a legitimate governmental need or is necessary in the performance of a legitimate governmental function."
In OAG 79-475, copy enclosed, we said in part that even if records are exempt from inspection by the public generally, they should be made available by one public agency to another for legitimate governmental purposes.
Thus, it is the opinion of this Office that if a "Position Control Report" is merely a listing of budgeted employment positions, the amount budgeted for each position and the identity of the person employed in each position, such a document is a public record subject to public inspection and your denial of the request to inspect such a document was improper and in violation of the Open Records Law. Furthermore, regardless of the nature of a "Position Control Report," your denial of the request of one public agency to inspect the public records of another public agency was improper and in violation of the Open Records Law [KRS 61.878(4)] if the request was made for legitimate governmental purposes.
As required by statute, a copy of this opinion is being sent to the requesting party. If you decide not to comply with this opinion you may initiate further proceedings pursuant to KRS 61.880(5).