Request By:
[NO REQUESTBY IN ORIGINAL]
Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government violated the Open Records Act in responding to Aaron J. Silletto's June 1, 1999, open records request. For the reasons that follow, we find that LFUCG substantially complied with the Act in its response.
Mr. Silletto requested copies of various records and information pertaining to an employee in LFUCG's Division of Police, Officer Samuel Crawford, the speed measuring device used to ascertain the speed of the vehicle described in citation # 6372829, and both sides of the officer's copy of that citation. LFUCG responded, albeit somewhat tardily, by releasing all existing records which satisfied Mr. Silletto's request with the exception of Officer Crawford's social security number and the grade he received on his certification exam, both of which appeared on his radar certification training records. Relying on KRS 61.878(1)(a), LFUCG argued that disclosure of this information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of Officer Crawford's personal privacy. We agree.
The courts and this office have long recognized that a public agency may properly withhold an individual's social security number under authority of KRS 61.878(1)(a). Affirming the Kentucky Labor Cabinet's partial denial of a request for records containing social security numbers, in
Zink v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department of Workers' Claims, Labor Cabinet, Ky.App., 902 S.W.2d 825, 829 (1994), the Kentucky Court of Appeals declared that "those nine digits today represent no less than the keys to an information kingdom as it relates to any given individual." Conversely, the court noted, no Open Records Act related public interest is served by disclosure of the individual's social security number. The court therefore concluded that disclosure of social security numbers constituted a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The Attorney General has confirmed this view on numerous occasions. See, e.g., 97-ORD-176. Accordingly, we find no error in LFUCG's decision to withhold this portion of Officer Crawford's radar certification training records.
Similarly, we find no error in LFUCG's decision to withhold Office Crawford's examination score. The Attorney General has also recognized that a public employee, like Officer Crawford, has a cognizable privacy interest in test scores and examination results when those scores or results are disclosed in conjunction with the employee's name or other personally identifiable information. OAG 78-382; OAG 91-155; 92-ORD-1238; 96-ORD-45. In the absence of a superior public interest in disclosure, such records may be withheld pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(a). We find that no such public interest would be served by disclosure of Officer Crawford's test scores. Although arguably a lower test score might provide a basis for Mr. Silletto to attack the speeding citation with which he is apparently concerned, "this cannot be said to further the principal purpose of the Open Records Act. " Id. Accordingly, we conclude that LFUCG properly withheld Officer Crawford's test score.
LFUCG acknowledges that its response was not issued within three business days of receipt of Mr. Silletto's request, and that its failure to respond in a timely fashion constituted a violation of KRS 61.880(1). LFUCG explains, however, that Mr. Silletto had been notified in writing that additional time would be needed to compile the records and information that were responsive to his request, and that this notification crossed Mr. Silletto's appeal letter in the mail. We therefore find that LFUCG's procedural violation of the Open Records Act was mitigated by its attempt to notify Mr. Silletto of the cause of the delay, and its attempt to make copies of the records available to him at the earliest date per KRS 61.872(5). Nevertheless, we encourage LFUCG to continue to streamline its procedures for handling open records requests to insure timely responses to those requests.
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.