Request By:
Ms. Peggy Coburn
City Clerk
City of Jeffersonville
P.O. Box 127
Jeffersonville, Kentucky 40337-0127
Opinion
Opinion By: David L. Armstrong, Attorney General; Thomas R. Emerson, Assistant Attorney General
Mr. Bruce Daniel has appealed to the Attorney General pursuant to KRS 61.880 your handling of his requests to inspect various public records which apparently are in your custody.
From an examination of the documents supplied by Mr. Daniel it appears that by a note or memorandum dated January 31, 1986, he requested from you a copy of the minutes of the city council meeting held on January 30, 1986. Attached to his note or memorandum is a handwritten, somewhat difficult to read, one-page document referring to the meeting of January 30, 1986, which may be part or all of the council minutes in question.
By a note or memorandum dated February 25, 1986, Mr. Daniel requested an itemized copy of the expenses of the city for the years of 1984 and 1985. You replied in a letter dated February 28, 1986, that the city council said it would open for public inspection a copy of the audit report after the audit has been completed and the report prepared. You further stated that Mr. Daniel would be notified of the time and place when and where the audit report would be available for inspection.
In a note or memorandum dated March 4, 1986, Mr. Daniel requested an itemized copy of receipts and expenses of the city for the years of 1979 and 1980. In a letter dated March 5, 1986, you advised Mr. Daniel that his request for this material would be presented to the city council at its next regular meeting on March 27, 1986, and that you would do whatever the council directed you to do.
In a note or memorandum dated March 6, 1986, Mr. Daniel requested to see the records of receipts and expenses of the city for the years 1979 and 1980. He maintains that you refused to accept his request and that you verbally advised him to see the city council at its meeting scheduled for March 27, 1986.
OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
In connection with the request to inspect and copy the minutes of the council meeting of January 30, 1986, we direct your attention to KRS 61.835 which provides:
"The minutes of action taken at every meeting of any such public agency, setting forth an accurate record of votes and actions at such meetings, shall be promptly recorded and such records shall be open to public inspection at reasonable times no later than immediately following the next meeting of the body."
The above quoted statute clearly provides that the city is required to accurately record the minutes of all of its meetings and make such records available for public inspection. Thus the minutes of the meeting of January 30, 1986, must be accurately recorded in a legible manner and made available for public inspection not later than immediately following the first meeting after the meeting of January 30, 1986. If the city has not done this or does not do this then it has violated the provisions of KRS 61.835 and the provisions of the Open Records Act since the council minutes are public records under KRS 61.870(2).
In connection with the requests to see copies of itemized lists of receipts and expenses of the city for the years 1979, 1980, 1984 and 1985, your responses have not been satisfactory.
KRS 61.880(1) provides in part that each public agency, in regard to a request for record, shall determine within three days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays) after the receipt of such request, whether to comply with the request and shall notify in writing, within the three day period, the person making the request of its decision. If the request is denied the agency shall include a statement of the specific exception authorizing the withholding of the record. KRS 61.880(2) requires that a copy of the written response denying inspection of a public record shall be forwarded immediately by the public agency to the Attorney General. See OAG 85-120, a copy of which is enclosed.
In connection with receipts and expenses of the city we direct your attention to OAG 80-367, copy enclosed, dealing with the availability of such records. In that opinion we said that bills received, bills paid, warrants requesting checks be issued for payment of bills, cancelled checks, etc. are public records open for public inspection and should be in the custody of a public official. In addition, we said that documents relating to income records including records of all monies collected from fees charged, are public records subject to public inspection.
The request of Mr. Daniel involved itemized lists of receipts and expenses for various years so we presume he was initially interested in such documents as audit reports and financial statements containing lists of receipts and expenses. You should have advised him whether or not the city possessed such itemized lists.
If the city had such itemized lists those lists should have been made available within the time period mandated by the statute. It was not a sufficient response to advise the requesting party that his request would be referred to the city council for a decision at its next meeting which was approximately three weeks into the future. You or whoever has custody of such records, if such records do exist, should have made the records available or stated the specific exception relied upon in denying the request to inspect.
If itemized lists of receipts and expenses of the city for the years in question are not available you should have so advised the requesting party in writing within the three day time period. The requesting party could then decide whether he would wait until the itemized lists were prepared, if preparation of such lists had begun, whether he would make another request to inspect records of expenses and receipts generally, and compile his own lists or whether he would consider other alternatives that might be available.
It is, therefore, the opinion of the Attorney General that your handling of the requests to inspect itemized lists of expenses and receipts of the city for the specific years named was improper and not within the requirements of the Open Records Law (KRS 61.870 to KRS 61.884). You or the custodian of the municipal records should immediately make a further response and advise in writing whether itemized lists of the receipts and expenses of the city for the years requested are available. If such itemized records do exist you should either make them available for public inspection or explain what specific exception to public inspection you are relying upon in denying the request to inspect.
As required by statute a copy of this opinion is being sent to the requesting party, Bruce Daniel, who has the right to take further action in court if he is not allowed to inspect the records in question, if they exist, or given an appropriate response of denial within 30 days. Furthermore, the public agency is authorized to challenge this opinion in circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) if it disagrees with the findings and conclusions expressed herein.