Request By:
Mr. Leo E. Esters
Mayor, City of Cave City
Cave City, Kentucky 42127Bobby H. Richardson, Esq.
117 E. Washington Street
Glasgow, Kentucky 42141
Opinion
Opinion By: David L. Armstrong, Attorney General; Thomas R. Emerson, Assistant Attorney General
Mr. Harold J. Bennett has appealed to the Attorney General pursuant to KRS 61.880 your handling of and the apparent denial of his request to obtain a certain specific piece of information which would be within the scope of knowledge of some city officer or employee or someone associated with the city in some official capacity. He describes the information sought as the name of the insurance company that insures the police vehicles, the fire department vehicles and the street department of Cave City.
Mr. Bennett sent a letter dated May 12, 1986, by certified mail to Mr. Esters asking for the name of the insurance company insuring the vehicles described in the preceding paragraph. Mr. Esters, in a letter to Mr. Bennett dated May 14, 1986, advised that it would be necessary for Mr. Bennett to contact the city attorney to secure such information. Mr. Esters set forth the name and address of the city attorney in his letter.
Mr. Bennett states that he called Mr. Richardson and was advised over the telephone that Mr. Richardson did not know the name of the insurance company. Mr. Richardson purportedly said that if Mr. Bennett had a reason for needing such information he could probably obtain the necessary information and advise Mr. Bennett at a later time.
OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Since the Open Records Act (KRS 61.870 to KRS 61.884) deals with the inspection and copying of public records, Mr. Bennett, technically, should have requested to inspect documents which would have revealed what he was trying to find out, such as, for example, the city's policy of insurance. However, in this particular situation his request for the one specific Piece of information was clear and precise and the request could have been easily responded to by the city. Mr. Bennett's request, therefore, is being treated by this office as a request under the Open Records Act. Requiring him to restate his request would be a waste of everyone's time and would unnecessarily delay the disposition of this matter.
There is no provision in the Open Records Act which requires that a person give a reason as to why he wants to inspect public records and that he state what he intends to do with information acquired as a result of inspecting public records. In OAG 81-345, copy enclosed, at page two, we said in part that a person requesting to inspect public records does not have to state any reason for making the inspection. He does not have to show any special interest in the subject matter of the records.
When a request is made under the Open Records Act, KRS 61.880(1) requires that the public agency respond within three working days after the receipt of the request. The public agency is required to notify the requesting party in writing as to whether or not the request will be complied with, and, if it will not be, the public agency must state the exception to public inspection upon which it is relying and how that exception applies to the record withheld.
In OAG 85-85, copy enclosed, at page three, we said in part that records which are easily described and readily available should not be temporarily withheld from public inspection by governmental red tape under the pretense of complying with the Open Records Act.
It is therefore the opinion of the Attorney General that the public agency (the city) has violated the terms and provisions of the Open Records Act by its improper handling of the request of Mr. Bennett. The public agency should make the information requested available by either communicating it to the requesting party or permitting him to inspect those municipal records which will reveal that information or the public agency should advise in writing the requesting party of the particular exception to public inspection it is relying upon and how it applies to the specific information and document being withheld in this situation.
As required by statute, a copy of this opinion is being sent to the requesting party, Mr. Harold J. Bennett. If you decide not to comply with the terms of this opinion, you may initiate further proceedings pursuant to KRS 61.880(5).