Request By:
Mr. James M. Gary
Mayor, City of Brownsboro Village
P.O. Box 6635
Louisville, Kentucky 40206-0635
Opinion
Opinion By: Frederic J. Cowan, Attorney General; Thomas R. Emerson, Assistant Attorney General
Mr. Norbert J. Fante has appealed to the Attorney General pursuant to KRS 61.880 your handling of his request to inspect and copy various records and documents in the city's possession.
This office has been furnished with numerous documents in connection with this appeal but some of them are irrelevant as far as a request to inspect public records is concerned. In addition, this office has previously rendered at least one formal opinion in regard to an appeal under the Open Records Act involving the parties to this appeal and the intent and objective of this opinion is to stick to the facts and the law and ignore whatever personality problems that may exist between the parties.
In connection with the materials pertinent to this appeal, Mr. Fante's letter to you, dated January 14, 1988, after expressing dissatisfaction with the city commission meeting of January 12, 1988, requested that you furnish him with three items of information. He wanted the individual amounts of the 1987 tax bills of all west side property owners abutting Chenoweth Lane including the commercial lots on the northern end of Chenoweth Lane, the individual cost (annual) of garbage collection of each individual property owner on Chenoweth Lane and copies of the letters of specifically named persons relative to the withdrawal of those persons' names from the deannexation petition.
You responded to Mr. Fante in a letter dated January 20, 1987, and advised him as follows relative to his request for documents:
I've enclosed a copy of the letter which I received from Steve and Linda Bellis immediately prior to last month's meeting. As I stated at the meeting, I did not receive a letter from Mr. Harris - I received a phone call from him, requesting that I remove his name from the petition. I advised everyone at the meeting of the phone call. The following figures constitute the tax bill amounts (for fiscal 87-88, as adjusted) for the properties fronting on Chenoweth Lane: $152.60, 154.00, 95.48, 109.48, 140.56, 110.88, 96.88, 154.00, 108.08, 86.24, 152.04, 159.04, 164.36, 110.32, 95.76, 187.60. I will bring the garbage collection contract, with the other figures/items you have requested, to my office next week. Please call me or my secretary some time next week regarding a convenient time to come by and view this information.
Mr. Fante has submitted a copy of your letter of January 20, 1988, with his written notation that your letter is "inadequate and a stall." Mr. Fante also wrote you a letter dated January 19, 1988, in which he merely renewed the requests set forth in his letter of January 14, 1988.
Mr. Fante's letter of appeal to this office was received January 25, 1988. He states that he has received no denial and the city has refused to comply with the regulations (presumably the provisions of the Open Records Act) relative to his letters of January 14 and January 19, 1988. Mr. Fante has also sent this office two copies of his letter to you dated January 25, 1988. Other than acknowledging the receipt of your letter to him, dated January 20, 1988, the letter has no relevance, in the opinion of the undersigned Assistant Attorney General, to this appeal of Mr. Fante under the Open Records Act.
OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
In OAG 81-333, copy enclosed, at page three, this office discussed briefly the difference between a request for information and a request to inspect public documents under the terms and provisions of the Open Records Act (KRS 61.870 to KRS 61.884). We said the purpose of the Open Records Act is not to provide information but to provide access to public records which are not exempt from public inspection. KRS 61.872(1) and (2) state in part that all public records shall be open for inspection except as otherwise provided and any person shall have the right to inspect public records during the regular hours of the agency.
In addition, the Open Records Act does not require that a public agency make a list from public records and a list need only be furnished if that list exists at the time the request is made. See OAG 84-342, copy enclosed, at page three. Thus if a requesting party wants a list complied from public documents but such a list is not already available that person will have to construct his own list after inspecting the applicable public documents.
Obviously a person will acquire information from inspecting public materials but the public agency's duty is to make its public records available for public inspection rather than gathering information for the public. Frequently the desired information will be acquired from an inspection of the records but it may not always be in the format desired by the requesting party.
KRS 61.880 sets forth the duties of the public agency relative to its response to a request to inspect documents. As required, the public agency notified the requesting party of its decision in writing. The public agency made available the material about the people who wanted their names taken from the deannexation petition, information was furnished relative to tax bill amounts and an offer was made to make available within a few days not only the garbage collection contract but other materials pertaining to items, documents and information sought.
This office does not construe the public agency's response as insufficient or improper under the Open Records Act. Had the requesting party actually inspected the documents, then it would have been known whether any of requested information was improperly withheld.
It is, therefore, the opinion of the Attorney General that the public agency's written response to the requesting party's request to inspect public documents was legally sufficient pursuant to KRS 61.872 and KRS 61.880 of the Open Records Act and afforded the requesting party a reasonable opportunity to inspect the records and materials requested to obtain the desired information.
As required by statute a copy of this opinion is being sent to the requesting party, Mr. Norbert J. Fante, who has the right to challenge it in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5).