Opinion
Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Department of Labor violated the Open Records Act in partially denying the request submitted by Joseph D. Satterly requesting "all documents relating to inspection number H-034-020-8 (Florida Tile/Sikes Corp.)." For the reasons that follow, we affirm the Department's disposition of the request.
In responding, the Department partially denied the request for a copy of the entire file, advising:
The non-exempt information from the file is enclosed. The preliminary worknotes and correspondence with private individuals are exempted from release pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(i) and (j) to wit: correspondence with private individuals; and preliminary recommendations, and preliminary memoranda in which opinions are expressed or policies formulated or recommended. Also, any information identifying employees contacted has been removed pursuant to KRS 338.101(1)(a).
Subsequently, Mr. Satterly initiated the instant appeal, challenging the Department's partial denial of his request.
After receipt of notification of the appeal, Leslie E. Renkey, General Counsel, on behalf of the Department, provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. In his response, Mr. Renkey advised:
The Department of Labor released 282 pages of the OSH inspection file requested by Mr. Satterly, withholding only the pages containing names and addresses of employees who had been contacted by the investigator and the preliminary worknotes and preliminary memoranda in which opinions were expressed or policies formulated. The withholding of these records is authorized by KRS 338.101(1)(a) and KRS 61.878(1)(i) and (j).
Among the public records that may be excluded from public inspection in the absence of a court order authorizing inspection are those identified at KRS 61.878(1)(i) and (j) as:
Preliminary drafts, notes, correspondence with private individuals other than correspondence which is intended to give notice of final action of a public agency.
Preliminary recommendations and preliminary memoranda in which opinions are expressed or policies formulated or recommended.
It is well settled that an occupational safety and health compliance officer's worknotes generated in the course of an investigation of a work site, and containing preliminary drafts of possible citations, along with the compliance officer's observations and opinions, may properly be withheld under authority of KRS 61.878(1)(i) and (j). 06-ORD-224; 03-ORD-249.
It is equally well settled that employee interview statements that were obtained by a compliance officer under authority of KRS 338.101(1)(a), and that are located in the investigative file, are excluded from the mandatory disclosure provisions of the Open Records Act by operation of KRS 61.878(1)(l). 03-ORD-249. KRS 61.878(1)(l) authorizes agencies to withhold "[p]ublic records or information the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted or otherwise made confidential by enactment of the General Assembly." KRS 338.101(1)(a) provides:
(1) In order to carry out the purposes of this chapter, the commissioner or his authorized representative shall have the authority:
(Emphasis added.) This office has construed the term "question privately" to extend protection to any statements thus obtained. OAG 82-192; 92-ORD-1441; 98-ORD-190. We believe that these decisions are dispositive of the appeal before us. Any information identifying employees contacted and/or interviewed may be withheld from disclosure pursuant to KRS 338.101(1)(a) and KRS 61.878(1)(l).
Although the exceptions to the Open Records Act have been deemed "convenient shields which public officials may use when they desire to do so [and] not restraints to keep them from opening up any records in their custody," OAG 79-275, p. 3, the decision to release otherwise exempt records rests with the agency and not with the Attorney General, no matter how compelling the requester's need for those records. It is for the Department of Labor to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to release all of the records in its investigative file or to withhold some of the records under one of the exceptions codified at KRS 61.878(1)(a) through (l). We therefore conclude that the Department's partial denial of the request did not violate the Open Records Act.
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.