Request By:
Jerry Lunsford
1604 Louisville Road
Frankfort, KY 40601Vickie A. Sewell
Franklin County Planning, Zoning
& Building Codes Enforcement
Third Floor, Room 305
315 West Main Street
Frankfort, KY 40601Jim Boyd
Franklin County Attorney
315 West Main
P.O. Box 290
Frankfort, KY 40602-0073
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 Franklin County Planning, Zoning & Building Code Enforcement violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of Jerry T. Lunsford's request for information relating to inspections and reinspections from 1997 to October 24, 2001. For the reasons that follow, we affirm Franklin County's response to his request.
On October 24, Mr. Lunsford requested copies of:
the following information for the calendar years 1997 to 2001 (thus far):
Mr. Lunsford is President of 21st Century Designs, and he indicated that the information was needed to update the company's files.
On October 26, 2001, Franklin County Planning, Zoning & Building Codes Enforcement Director Vickie A. Sewell responded to Mr. Lunsford's request. She advised him that the requested information had been compiled, that there were 1,269 responsive records, and that the records could be obtained at a cost of $ 126.90. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Lunsford initiated this appeal arguing that he requested "very specific information . . . that could have been compiled in a few pages," but instead "received an excessive number of pages that were unnecessary, and more importantly, unrequested." It was his position that the Open Records Act "is circumvented by their providing innumerable copies of items not requested, thereby making the desire for information expensive and cumbersome."
In a response directed to this office following commencement of Mr. Lunsford's appeal, Ms. Sewell elaborated on her agency's position:
After receiving the request, I contacted Ms. Robin Jones of 21st Century Designs and indicated that the information being requested would result in a large number of pages and that the cost may be over $ 100. Ms. Jones indicated that Mr. Lunsford said that that was fine.
Based upon that phone conversation, our office proceeded to put together the information requested. The type of information requested was varied and in most cases, is not kept in a form that is readily available or in any type of summary. Therefore, that information was given as it is kept by our office. All the information requested by 21st Century Designs, Inc. was provided by this office.
We believe that Franklin County Planning, Zoning & Building Codes Enforcement's response to Mr. Lunsford's request did not constitute a subversion of the intent of the Open Records Act, but was instead consistent with the Act.
The Attorney General has long recognized that a public agency is not statutorily obligated to honor a request for information as opposed to a request for specifically described public records. For example, in 93-ORD-51 this office held that the Open Records Act:
was not intended to provide a requester with particular "information," or to require public agencies to compile information to conform to the parameters of a given request. See, e.g., OAG 76-375; OAG 79-547; OAG 81-335, OAG 86-51; OAG 87-84; OAG 89-77; OAG 89-81; OAG 90-19. Rather, the Law provides for inspection of reasonably identified records.
93-ORD-51, p. 3. Mirroring this view, in OAG 87-84 we observed:
Public agencies are not required by the Open Records Act to gather and supply information independent of that which is set forth in public records. The public has a right to inspect public documents and to obtain whatever information is contained in them but the primary impact of the Open Records Act is to make records available for inspection and copying and not to require the gathering and supplying of information.
OAG 87-84, p. 3. These decisions were premised on the language of the statutes themselves, including KRS 61.871 (providing that "free and open examination of public records is in the public interest"), KRS 61.872(1) (providing that "[a]ll public records shall be open for inspection by any person"), and KRS 61.872(2) (providing that "[a]ny person shall have the right to inspect public records ") (emphasis added).
Mr. Lunsford requested information consisting, inter alia , of addresses, lot numbers, and subdivisions of properties for which 21st Century Designs obtained a building permit, addresses and lost numbers of projects that required reinspection, the types of inspections and reasons they were required, the dates coinciding therewith, amounts expended on reinspections, the dates on which reinspection fees were implemented, and the number of reinspections countywide. Mr. Lunsford himself characterized his letter as a request for "very specific information. " Ms. Sewell responded that her agency does not maintain a single record, or even a limited number of records, in which this information is compiled, and that the agency is not obligated to create one. We agree.
In OAG 88-79, this office observed:
KRS 61.872 provides that all public records (except as otherwise provided) shall be open for inspection. If there were records or compilations accumulating the information . . . requested, they would have to be disclosed. The issue here is not whether the request is a blanket one, or whether it is specific[.] The issue is whether there exist records or compilations that would satisfy [the] request.
Obviously information documenting, in bits and pieces, facts [the requester] is attempting to determine, will appear among the many records that are generated through time. Public agencies, however, are neither required nor directed by open records provisions to devote the taxpayer's time to reviewing voluminous records in order to compile information to satisfy a particular information request. The legislature has recognized this by providing only that records must be made available for inspection, not that information must be extracted and compiled.
OAG 88-79, p. 3. We believe that the reasoning of OAG 88-79 is dispositive of this appeal.
Because Mr. Lunsford asked that the information be faxed to him, Ms. Sewell treated his correspondence as a request for copies, and went above and beyond her statutory duty in compiling and copying documents containing the information sought. Prior to doing so, she notified his office that the costs associated with reproducing these records might exceed one hundred dollars, and apparently received Mr. Lunsford's approval to proceed. Under these circumstances, we find no error in Franklin County Planning, Zoning & Building Code Enforcement's disposition of his request. If, in the future, Mr. Lunsford wishes to avoid payment for, and receipt of, unnecessary copies, he may wish to consider the option of conducting an on-site inspection of the agency's records to extract only the specific information he seeks.
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 proceedings.