Request By:
David H. Dixon
P.O. Box 484
Cumberland, KY 40823Timothy Saylor
Superintendent, Harlan County Schools
251 Ball Park Road
Harlan, KY 40831-1756Johnnie Turner
Harlan County School Board Attorney
P.O. Box 935
Harlan, KY 40831
Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the actions of the Harlan County Schools system relative to the open records request of David H. Dixon for certain records of the school system violated the Open Records Act.
By letter dated July 5, 2001, Mr. Dixon requested to inspect the following records:
1. All the purchase requests and statements involving Cumberland High School for Lowes Sporting/Athletics for the school years of 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01. This would include all records from Cumberland High School, Lowes, and the Harlan County School Board.
2. The Harlan County School Board allocated Cumberland High School $ 15,000.00 for the girls softball team this past school year. I am requesting all records of request for purchases and all payment from this account.
3. The budget for Cumberland High School for 2001-2002, for each area of expense that should have been submitted by the Site-Base-Decision Making Council to the Harlan County Board of Education.
In his letter of appeal, dated July 31. 2001, Mr. Dixon states that Harlan County Schools has yet to send any of the materials that he requested on July 5, 2001.
After receipt of Notification to Agency of Receipt of Open Records Appeal, Timothy W. Saylor, Superintendent of the Harlan County Schools, provided this office with a response, to the issues raised in the appeal. In his response, Mr. Saylor advised:
Mr. Dixon was given the information he requested on July 9, 2001 as shown by the following copy of the Visitor Sign In sheet. This information was in the form of computer print-out which answered request # 1 & # 2. Request # 3 would require the information being obtained from Cumberland High School.
In addition to Mr. Saylor's response, Johnnie L. Turner, school board attorney, also submitted a response to Mr. Dixon's letter of appeal. In his response, Mr. Turner advised:
I am writing this letter in reference to the above styled matter. Please be advised that Mr. David Dixon has agreed to give me a copy of any request he has so I can assist him according to the information I have as school board attorney. Mr. Dixon has all the information he has requested which can be obtained under the open records request act. If he has requested something and hasn't received it, I would advise we are not aware of such a request.
It is always the intent of the Harlan County Board of Education to comply with the Open Meeting Records act and all other laws of the Commonwealth.
By facsimile letter dated August 24, 2001, Mr. Dixon advised this office that he had not received the requested materials.
We are asked to determine whether the Harlan County Schools violated the Open Records Act. The public agency states that it made the records available for inspection and provided Mr. Dixon with the requested information. Mr. Dixon disputes this and states he never received the materials. Regarding disagreements of this nature between a requester and a public agency, this office, in OAG 89-81, stated:
This office cannot, with the information currently available, adjudicate a dispute regarding a disparity, if any, between records for which inspection has already been permitted, and those sought but not provided. Indeed, such is not the role of this office under open records provisions. It seems clear that you have permitted inspection of some records [the requester] asked to inspect, and that copies of some records have been provided. Hopefully any dispute regarding the records here involved can be worked out through patient consultation and cooperation between the parties.
Accordingly, the parties should mutually cooperate to resolve any differences or misunderstandings related to records sought.
It is unclear whether there is a disagreement as to whether the records are to be provided by mail as opposed to on-site inspection. Addressing this issue, if Mr. Dixon both resides and works in Harlan County, he may be required to make an on-site inspection. If he works outside Harlan County, the public agency would be in error in refusing to furnish him with copies of records that are precisely described and readily available within the agency. On this issue, the Attorney General has observed:
KRS 61.872(3)(a) and (b) states:
(3) A person may inspect the public records:
(a) During the regular office hours of the public agency; or
(b) By receiving copies of the public records from the public agency through the mail. The public agency shall mail copies of the public records to a person whose residence or principal place of business is outside the county in which the public records are located after he precisely describes the public records which are readily available within the public agency. If the person requesting the public records requests that copies of the records be mailed, the official custodian shall mail the copies upon receipt of all fees and the cost of mailing.
. . .
In construing KRS 61.872(3)(a) and (b), the Attorney General has observed:
The statute . . . contemplates records access by one of two means: On-site inspection during the regular office hours of the agency, in suitable facilities provided by the agency, or receipt of the records from the agency through the mail . . . . [w]e believe that the legislature, in using this language, intended to facilitate the broadest possible access to public records . . . . Thus, a requester who both lives and works in the same county where the public records are located may be required to inspect the records prior to receiving copies. [But] a requester who lives or works in a county other than the county where the public records are located may demand that the agency provide him with copies of records, without inspecting those records, if he precisely describes the records and they are readily available within the agency.
96-ORD-186, p. 3.
A requester who both lives and works in county where the records are maintained, falls within the former category, and can be required to conduct an on-site inspection as a precondition to receipt of copies. Nevertheless, early opinions of this office urge public agencies to "accommodate requesters whenever they can within the bounds of the efficient operation of their office." OAG 83-204, p. 4; compare OAG 86-24. 'To require the requester to appear in person at the office of the agency" when his request is narrowly framed and the records can be easily accessed, "would not be more convenient to either party and would only inhibit the intended purposes of the Open Records Act. " Although the public agency is not legally obligated to do so, it may wish to consider mailing copies of these records upon receipt of prepayment for those copies. 00-ORD-211.
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.