Request By:
Mr. Allan Osborne
Superintendent
Frankfort Independent Schools
315 Steele Street
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Opinion
Opinion By: David L. Armstrong, Attorney General; Thomas R. Emerson, Assistant Attorney General
Ms. Susan Stone has appealed to the Attorney General pursuant to KRS 61.880 your denial of her request to inspect and copy certain records in the custody of the school system.
Apparently Ms. Stone made a telephone request to you concerning documents pertaining to a former employee of the school system, Ms. Sheryl Mann. Ms. Stone wanted documents setting forth the prior work experience of Ms. Mann which she said was obtainable from Ms. Mann's resume on file with the school system.
You advised Ms. Stone by telephone or by some means other than a written response that the requested documents would not be made available for her inspection. Ms. Stone subsequently filed with this office a written appeal challenging the validity of your handling of her request.
Since the original request and your denial of that request did not involve any written correspondence, the undersigned Assistant Attorney General contacted you by telephone on November 23, 1987, to obtain your explanation and views relative to the situation. You stated that the request was denied pursuant to the terms and provisions of KRS 61.878(1)(a) and (g). You also cited OAG 76-717 and OAG 79-275 in support of your decision to deny the request.
OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
KRS 61.880(1) provides in part that each public agency (including, of course, school districts) shall respond in writing to a request for records made pursuant to the Open Records Act within three working days of the receipt of the request. The public agency should advise the requesting party as to whether or not the request will be granted. An agency response denying inspection shall set forth the specific exception to public inspection upon which the public agency is relying and a brief explanation of how the exception applies to the record withheld.
Thus, the public agency (the school system) should have responded in writing to Ms. Stone's request within three working days of the receipt of her request. The written denial should have set forth the specific exception to public inspection relied upon by the school board and how that exception applied to the document withheld.
Among the public records which may be withheld from public inspection in the absence of a court order authorizing inspection are those described in KRS 61.878(1(a) as, "Public records containing information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. "
As far back as 1976 this office concluded that the public is entitled to know the name, position, work station and salary of a government employee. See OAG 76-717 and OAG 79-275, copies of which are enclosed. The principles set forth in those opinions would also apply to employees of a school district.
We have also stated, however, that a governmental employee is entitled to privacy as far as his personal life and off duty activities are concerned. While the public has a right to know about those matters which are related to the governmental employee's public and work related activities, information which is unrelated to the employee's official job activities may be withheld. There is some information about a government employee in which the public's right to know is not greater than the right of the governmental employee to his personal privacy.
While this state does not have a privacy law it has generally recognized the right of privacy as set forth in the common law. Some of the concepts and principles of the right of privacy are discussed in OAG 87-37, a copy of which is enclosed. While there is no "hard and fast definition" of the right of privacy which can be applied to all fact situations, the application of the right does involve a balancing of the interests of the public and its right to know against those of the government employee and his right to privacy, particularly in nonwork related matters and situations.
In OAG 84-19, copy enclosed, we specifically dealt with resumes of governmental employees which were in the possession of the employing governmental agency. We concluded that resumes could be excluded from public inspection pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(a) because they are personnel records and, as such, contain personal information, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. There was nothing in that situation nor is there anything in the situation presented by Ms. Stone's appeal that demonstrates that the public's interest in gaining access to the resume is greater than the employee's right to personal privacy.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Attorney General that the school system's refusal to release for public inspection the resume of one of its employees is supported by the exception to public inspection set forth in KRS 61.878(1)(a) relating to protection against an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The school system's response to and rejection of a request to inspect must be communicated to the requesting party in writing within three working days of the receipt of the request.
As required by statute a copy of this opinion is being sent to the requesting party, Ms. Susan Stone, who has the right to challenge it in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5).