Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Transportation Cabinet's response to Charles D. Batson's request for information concerning two vehicles violated the Open records Act.
By letter dated February 4, 2001, Mr. Batson made the following request for information:
Please identify which state agencies the following vehicles are assigned to, and if authorized for/as take home vehicles, what individual is authorized to use as a take home vehicle:
Both are blue Ford Crown Victorias.
By letter dated February 5, 2002, Ed Roberts, Commissioner of Administrative Services and Custodian of Records, responded to Mr. Batson's request, advising:
Please be advised that the Open Records Act is a means by which the requester can obtain records and that the public agency is not required to answer questions under this act. In your request you have asked questions rather than request specifically described records. These questions will not be responded to in this letter. However, we would direct you to our Office of Public Affairs for any questions you may wish to ask. You may reach that office at (502) 564-4890.
Should you need any additional assistance, please contact me at (502) 564-3670.
After receipt of Notification of the appeal and a copy of Mr. Batson's letter of appeal, Todd Shipp, Assistant General Counsel, provided a response to issues raised in the appeal. In his response, Mr. Shipp stated:
This will serve as the formal response of the Transportation Cabinet to the above-referenced appeal. KRS 61 is an avenue for anyone with exceptions to obtain records from the government. It is not the "Open Questions Act," it is the "Open Records Act. "
Further, it is incumbent on the requester to identify records sought with reasonable specificity and the public agency is not obligated to conduct a search for such documents. There is a plethora of OAG opinions that establish this as a cornerstone of a requester's obligations. Nor is a public agency obligated to create a record to satisfy a particular open records request. See, 96-ORD-139, 95-ORD-48.
Perhaps, if Mr. Batson could describe some type of record rather than asking questions, the Transportation Cabinet might locate such record. But as of the first request, this agency was left guessing as to what record he wanted.
We are asked to determine whether the Cabinet's response violated the Open Records Act. For the reasons that follow, we conclude it did not.
The Attorney General has long recognized that a public agency is not obligated to honor a request for information as opposed to a request for specifically described records. "The purpose of the Open Records Law is not to provide information but to provide access to public records which are not exempt by law." OAG 79-547, p. 2. Although information may be gleaned from these records, it is the public agency's duty to make public records available for inspection and copying. Public agencies are not required to gather and supply information independent of that which is set forth in public records. As we noted at page 5 of OAG 89-81:
Open Records provisions were not intended to serve as a comprehensive audit tool, or as a means of commanding compilation of and production of specific information. Open Records provisions are intended to provide for inspection of reasonably described records held by public agencies. See OAG 76-375. Open Records provisions do not provide for, and agency workers are not required to provide under them, instruction in understanding of the meaning or import of information shown upon records produced.
Obviously information will be obtained from an inspection of the records and documents, but the duty imposed upon public agencies under the Act is to make public documents available for inspection and copying. Public agencies are not required by the Open Records Act to gather and supply information independent of that 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.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Cabinet's response to Mr. Batson's request for information, as opposed to a request for specifically described records, did not violate the Open Records Act. The Cabinet did provide Mr. Batson with the telephone number of its Office of Public Affairs for any questions he might wish to ask. Neither the Cabinet, nor any other public agency governed by the provisions of the Open Records Act, is required to compile information to conform to the parameters of a given request. See e.g., 97-ORD-186; 96-ORD-150; 95-ORD-131. There is, of course, no impediment to Mr. Batson resubmitting his request as a properly framed request for records containing the 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 proceeding.
Charles D. Batson2201 Bashford Manor LaneLouisville, KY 40218
Ed RobertsTransportation CabinetDepartment of Administrative ServicesState Office BuildingFrankfort, KY 40622
Todd ShippTransportation CabinetState Office BuildingFrankfort, KY 40622