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 responses of the Martin County School District to that portion of Gary Ball's November 1, 2002, open records request that asked for copies of bank statements for credit card use for miscellaneous expenditures for travel or other miscellaneous expenses for 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, violated the Open Records Act. For the reasons that follow, we find that the District did not violate the Act.
On November 1, 2002 Mr. Ball submitted five separate open records requests for certain District records. After several responses and communications between the parties, the evidence presented indicates that all requested records were provided to Mr. Ball, except for the records at issue here.
After several exchanges of correspondence, in a letter dated December 2, 2002, William R. Slone, Superintendent of Schools, on behalf of the District, responded to Mr. Ball's request for copies of the bank statements reflecting credit card use or cash advances, advising:
As per request #1, November 1, 2000, bank statements do not reflect credit cards or cash advances. Cash advances are generally used to cover transfers to and from locations. These are then covered by receipts (i.e., taxies, buses, etc.).
By letter dated December 10, 2002, Mr. Ball advised this office that Mr. Slone had informed him that there were no records of bank statements of credit card use that he had requested and that he had again requested these records from the District.
By letter dated December 20, 2002, Mr. Slone, in responding to Mr. Ball's open records requests of December 12, 2002, and December 19, 2002, advised in relevant part:
Regarding your request for information related to credit card charges, that information is being located and copies will be sent to you once completed.
By letter dated January 9, 2003, Mr. Ball again renewed his request for copies of "bank statements reflecting travel expenses on credit card (s) used by the school district for 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002."
By letter dated January 14, 2003, Mr. Slone advised Mr. Ball:
In paragraph one of your January 9th communication you requested copies of bank statements dealing with district credit card charges for 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. This information will be delivered to the Mountain Citizen not later than Friday, January 17, 2003.
By letter dated January 16, 2003, Mr. Slone, addressing the records at issue in the instant appeal and in his subsequent January 9, 2003, open records request advised Mr. Ball:
Enclosed with this communication are copies of the statements requested.
We are asked to determine whether the District's actions in response to Mr. Ball's request violated the Open Records Act. For the reasons that follow, we conclude the response did not violate the Act.
We do note at the outset that some of the requests were for information, rather than for specific records, and for lists of information. An agency is not obligated to honor requests that constitute a request for information as opposed to a request for specifically described records. The Kentucky Open Records Act addresses requests for records, not requests for information. In 95-ORD-131, p. 2, we observed:
Requests for information, as distinguished from records, are outside of the scope of the open records provisions. See, e.g., OAG 89-77. Our position is premised on the notion that "[o]pen records provisions address only inspection of records . . . [and] do not require public agencies or officials to provide or compile specific information to conform to the parameters of a given request."
Moreover, this office has also long recognized that a public agency is not obligated to compile a list or create a record that does not exist to satisfy an open records request. See, e.g., OAG 76-375; OAG 90-101; 96-ORD-251. It is unclear whether the information Mr. Ball requested was contained in the specific records identified in his requests or in documents not specifically described in his requests. However, as noted above, Mr. Slone's letter of January 16, 2003, indicates that the District has provided Mr. Ball with the information he requested. Under these facts, we conclude that the District has complied with the Open Records Act by providing the requester with the records or information he requested. If there remain any records in dispute, the requester should contact the District and clarify the precise records he is seeking or specifically identify those records that he believes he requested, but did not receive. If any records still remain in dispute, Mr. Ball can initiate another appeal to this office or proceed directly to the appropriate circuit court. KRS 61.880; 61.882. In OAG 89-81, the Attorney General 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.
The parties should continue to cooperate to resolve any differences or misunderstandings related to records sought by Mr. Ball.
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.