Request By:
[NO REQUESTBY IN ORIGINAL]
Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
This matter comes to the Attorney General on appeal from the actions of Kentucky State University relative to Robert K. Landrum's open records request, dated November 7, 1997, to inspect "current, written regulations and/or Board of Regents approved policies that include the subject of responses to Open Records Requests."
By letter dated November 13, 1997, Harold S. Greene, Jr., General Counsel, Kentucky State University, responded to Mr. Landrum's request. In his response, Mr. Greene stated:
The University takes no exception to your request of November 7, 1997 which was received by our office on November 12, 1997. I will provide you a copy of the policy as first iterated at the University. It will be forwarded to you as soon as possible.
In his letter of appeal to this office, dated December 10, 1997, Mr. Landrum indicates he has yet to receive the requested records.
We are asked to determine whether the actions of Kentucky State University were consistent with the Open Records Act. For the reasons which follow, it is the decision of this office that the actions of the University were inconsistent with the Act.
KRS 61.872(5) provides:
If the public record is in active use, in storage or not otherwise available, the official custodian shall immediately notify the applicant and shall designate a place, time, and date for inspection of the public records, not to exceed three (3) days from receipt of the application, unless a detailed explanation of the cause is given for further delay and the place, time, and earliest date on which the public record will be available for inspection.
In the instant case, Mr. Greene notified Mr. Landrum that he would provide the requested records and would make them available "as soon as possible." This response is deficient in that it fails to provide Mr. Landrum with the place, time, and earliest date on which the public record would be available for inspection. "As soon as possible" is not specific or certain enough to advise the requester whether he may inspect the records within a reasonable period of time. Moreover, the University did not provide a detailed explanation as to the cause for delay in making the records available for inspection, as required by KRS 61.872(5).
The failure of the University to provide Mr. Landrum with timely access to the records identified in his request, timely access being defined as "any time less than three days from agency receipt of the request," OAG 84-300, p. 3, or in the alternative, with a detailed explanation of the cause of any delay beyond three days, as well as a statement indicating the earliest date on which the records would be available for inspection, was a violation of the Open Records Act. KRS 61.872(5). 96-ORD-102.
Accordingly, if it has not already done so, the University should promptly make the requested records available for Mr. Landrum's inspection.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.