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 Anderson County Fiscal Court violated the Open Records Act by failing to respond to Randy Skaggs's October 4, 1999, request for copies of records reflecting the county's total expenditures for its animal control program in fiscal year 1998 through 1999. We find that the fiscal court violated the Act in failing to respond, and that because no exception to public inspection exists for records reflecting public funds expended, those records must be disclosed to Mr. Skaggs.
Having received no response to his October 4 open records request, Mr. Skaggs initiated this appeal on December 31, 1999. On January 6, 2000, two days after the appeal was received in this office, the Attorney General sent a copy of his request letter and his letter of appeal, along with our notification of receipt of open records appeal, to the Anderson County Judge/Executive, the Anderson County Attorney, and the Anderson County Dog Warden. Although that notification clearly states that pursuant to 40 KAR 1:030 Section 2, "the agency may respond to this appeal," we received no response to our notification, and have not been advised that the fiscal court has taken any action relative to Mr. Skaggs's request.
The Anderson County Fiscal Court's failure to respond to Mr. Skaggs's October 4, 1999, request in a proper and timely fashion constitutes a violation of KRS 61.880(1). That statute provides:
Each public agency, upon any request for records made under KRS 61.870 to 61.884, shall determine within three (3) days, excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with the request and shall notify in writing the person making the request, within the three (3) day period, of its decision. An agency response denying, in whole or in part, inspection of any record shall include a statement of the specific exception authorizing the withholding of the record and a brief explanation of how the exception applies to the record withheld. The response shall be issued by the official custodian or under his authority, and it shall constitute final agency action.
The Anderson County Fiscal Court had not one but two opportunities to comply with KRS 61.880(1) by responding to Mr. Skaggs's original request and by responding to his request upon receipt of this office's notification of appeal. The fiscal court failed to do so.
No legal basis exists for denying Mr. Skaggs access to records documenting the expenditure of public funds for animal control. If no funds were expended, the fiscal court is obligated to advise Mr. Skaggs that no responsive records exist. This office has long recognized that "amounts paid from public coffers are perhaps uniquely of public concern . . . [and] the public is entitled to inspect records documenting exact amounts paid from public monies, to include amounts paid for items, or for salaries, etc." OAG 90-30, p. 3. The Anderson County Fiscal Court is therefore directed to immediately release the records identified in Mr. Skaggs's request to him, or to notify him in writing that no responsive records exist because no funds were expended on animal control.
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.