Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway,Attorney General;James M. Herrick,Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether Oldham County Planning and Development Services ("OCPDS") violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of Judy Ponder's request for copies of special meeting notices and certain training records of Study Review Committee members. For the reasons stated below, we find no substantive violation of the Act unless a record was withheld.
Ms. Ponder made her request on August 26, 2014, for several items. The only items which have been made an issue on appeal are the notices and agendas of special meetings of the Study Review Committee ("SRC") since January 1, 2011, and "Kentucky Open Meetings Act and Open Records Act training records for SRC members" along with "[d]ocuments of SRC members & chairs acknowledging ? their receipt of Open Meetings Act and Open Records Act brochures and regulations."
On September 10, 2014, OCPDS Director Jim Urban advised that Ms. Ponder had been sent all notices and agendas of all SRC meetings during the relevant time period. Although Ms. Ponder has an ongoing disagreement with OCPDS over which meetings constituted special meetings, the fact that she has been given all responsive documents for all meetings renders this portion of the appeal moot.
As for the requested training records, Mr. Urban stated in his initial response to Ms. Ponder on August 29, 2014: "No such records exist as SRC members are Planning Commission members and State Law does not require training for SRC members." Regarding the acknowledgments of receipt of materials, Mr. Urban stated: "No such documents are kept in this office. Any such documents would be reposed with the Oldham County Fiscal Court."
In his September 10 letter, Mr. Urban elaborated on his earlier response: "members of the SRC are not required by law to be provided with that information or for it to be documented. However, since all SRC members are members of the Planning Commission each SRC member did receive the required training and records as evidenced by the attached documentation. However, this documentation is not and was not in the possession of our office but is reposed with Fiscal Court pursuant to its appointment powers. These documents are being provided in response to this appeal as a courtesy to Ms. Ponder and to avoid the necessity of her requesting these records from Fiscal Court."
Mr. Urban's having provided these records to Ms. Ponder renders this portion of the appeal likewise moot, with one exception. In a reply dated September 13, 2014, Ms. Ponder alleges that the documentation was provided for only five out of six members of the SRC, the omission being Mary Ann Smith, who according to Ms. Ponder was appointed on November 26, 2013.
The record does not reflect whether the requested records exist as to Mary Ann Smith. If the records exist and were not produced, the issue becomes whether the original August 29 letter, referring Ms. Ponder to the Fiscal Court to obtain the records, was in compliance with the law. KRS 61.872(4) provides: "If the person to whom the application is directed does not have custody or control of the public record requested, that person shall notify the applicant and shall furnish the name and location of the official custodian of the agency's public records." (Emphasis added.) From a procedural standpoint, Mr. Urban should have provided the location of the Fiscal Court along with the name. 10-ORD-077. Substantively, however, we find no violation of the Open Records Act in this disposition.
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.