Request By:
John A. McCrea, Esq.
400 Burdorf Building
100 North Sixth Street
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
Opinion
Opinion By: David L. Armstrong, Attorney General; Thomas R. Emerson, Assistant Attorney General
I. Joel Frockt, Esq., has appealed to the Attorney General pursuant to KRS 61.880 your partial denial of his request to inspect various documents of the city of Barbourmeade. Mr. Frockt, in a letter to the mayor of the city of Barbourmeade, requested in six numerical paragraphs to inspect and copy certain documents.
In your letter to Mr. Frockt, dated April 28, 1986, you advised him that the items mentioned in numerical paragraphs two, three, four and five of his letter would be made available for his inspection and copying. You denied his request to inspect the records and documents requested in numerical paragraphs one and six of his letter.
Mr. Frockt, in numerical paragraph one of his letter, requested to inspect and copy the, "Operations Manual, Code of Conduct, Police Officer's Bill of Rights and all other books, pamphlets, and documents which have been developed, written or prepared specifically for the Barbourmeade Police Department. In your letter to Mr. Frocket you responded as follows relative to that portion of the request:
"With reference to your request for inspection of the items set out in paragraph 1 of your letter with reference to operation manual, Code of Conduct, Police Officer's Bill of Rights, etc., it is my understanding that the Jefferson County Police Department has successfully maintained that these items are matters of internal control and are not public records. Our position is the same as the County Police Department. "
In numerical paragraph six of his letter Mr. Frockt requested to inspect and copy those records pertaining to, "Detailed salary figures of Police Department personnel for fiscal years 1984-85 and 1985-86." Your response to that particular request was, "It is our position that your request for salary figures of the Police Department Personnel is an internal matter and not a public record as defined by KRS 61.870(2)."
OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
In regard to the matter of the availability of records relative to salary figures of police department personnel for the fiscal years in question, your attention is initially directed to OAG 82-233, a copy of which is enclosed. In that opinion and in others cited in that opinion this office stated that the public is entitled to know the name, position, work station and salary of state employees. The public has an interest in such matters since these persons are carrying on the public's business at public expense.
In OAG 77-723, copy enclosed, this office considered the question of whether the public, under the Open Records Act, has the right to inspect records containing the salaries of city employees, or whether such information may be withheld from public inspection as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(a). This office concluded that salaries of city employees are not exempt from public inspection and that what had been said about the inspection of salaries of state employees applies equally to the salaries of all public employees.
It is, therefore, the opinion of the Attorney General that the city's denial of the request to inspect and copy those records of the city relative to salary figures of police department personnel for the fiscal years in question was improper and in violation of the Open Records Law.
The request to inspect and copy documents designated as the Operations Manual, Code of Conduct, Police Officer's Bill of Rights and all other books, pamphlets and documents developed, written or prepared by and for the Barbourmeade Police Department presents some problems for this office as neither you nor Mr. Frockt have specifically identified some of those documents. There is a statute, KRS 15.520, which has become known as the police officer's bill of rights but this office cannot determine what the city's Police Officer's Bill of Rights consists of or, if there is such a document. In addition, this office does not know if there are books, pamphlets and documents relative to the police department or, if there are, what they consist of and what they encompass.
In your response to Mr. Frockt's requests, as set forth in numerical paragraph one of his letter, you merely responded with a general, blanket denial of everything requested. As this office construes your obligations relative to a request to inspect documents, KRS 61.880(1) requires that you advise the requesting party as to the existence of the documents requested. If the documents exist and inspection is denied, you should list each document which the city will not permit the requesting party to inspect and state how the exception to public inspection relied upon applies to the particular document withheld from inspection.
While this office cannot determine whether or not most of the documents contained in numerical paragraph one of Mr. Frockt's letter were improperly withheld from his inspection since we do not know whether they exist or, if they do, we do not know precisely what they involve, this office has dealt previously with the public availability of the policy and procedure manual of a public agency.
The operations manual of a police department, like the operations manual of a jail and a state correctional facility, discussed in OAG 79-546 and OAG 83-337, copies of which are enclosed, involves people in potentially perilous situations who are attempting to protect themselves, the public and the entities they serve. Elements such as personal and public security and administrative order are involved. These elements, while critical to a police department or a detention facility, are not nearly so important to the proper functioning of most other governmental agencies.
The operations manual of a police department is a sensitive document and for the reasons set forth in OAG 79-546 and OAG 83-337 such a document may be excluded from public inspection by the public agency pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(h). That section of the statute authorizes a public agency to exclude from public inspection, in the absence of a court order permitting inspection, an intra-agency document or memorandum of communication setting forth policies and recommendations.
It is, therefore, the opinion of the Attorney General that the public agency's denial of the request to inspect and copy the police department's operations manual is supported by the provisions of KRS 61.878(1)(h) as it is an intra-agency document setting forth policies and recommendations affecting the security and safety of the police officers, the public and the city. The public agency's response to the other requested documents was insufficient under the Open Records Act as the public agency should have advised if the documents existed and where inspection was denied each document not made available should be listed and the public agency should state how the exception to public inspection relied upon applied to the particular document withheld from inspection.
As required by statute a copy of this opinion is being sent to the requesting party, I. Joel Frockt, Esq. Either party has a right to challenge it in circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5).