Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway,Attorney General;Amye L. Bensenhaver,Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
Gary D. Norris appeals the Clinton County Board of Education's partial denial of his September 16, 2015, request for records documenting "purchases, dates, and items on the school district credit card used by Superintendent [Charlotte] Bernard for the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014"; "Mike Reeve's total salary during 2014-2015 and 2015-2016"; for the board's July 2012 meeting minutes; and "Lynn Starnes's job posting, job requirements, contracts, and total pay for 2014-2015 and 2015-2016." 1 The board responded to Mr. Norris's request on September 21, 2015, 2 agreeing to afford him access to records documenting Superintendent Bernard's "purchases, dates, and items on the district credit card, " the requested meeting minutes, and Ms. Starnes's 2014-2015 compensation "no later than September 25, 2015," but denying the remainder of his request as either duplicative or a request for nonexistent records. 3 This appeal followed.
In his appeal, Mr. Norris focused on credit card records, demanding that the records be released "in total" and without deletions. He also objected to the delay in production of the records beyond the September 25 deadline to which the board committed itself in its September 21 response. The board's November 18 response to Mr. Norris's appeal did not address the latter objection, but disputed Mr. Norris's objection to the redaction of the records produced. Board counsel explained:
In his initial request which he provided to your office, Norris sought, inter alia , "[a] copy of all invoices listing purchases, dates, and items on the school district credit card used by Superintendent Bernard for the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014." The School District understood this request to seek only those instances where Superintendent Bernard utilized the credit card to make purchases, rather than all instances in which the School District's credit card was used. On the records provided to Mr. Norris, the unredacted entries are indeed the only entries which reflect the instances where Superintendent Bernard utilized the School District credit card. Each redacted entry relates to an instance where the School District credit card was utilized by other employees of the School District, rather than by Superintendent Bernard. It is my understanding there is no invoice reflecting the two (2) transactions personally undertaken by Superintendent Bernard, such that the unredacted line items on the referenced records are the only ones which contain information sought by Norris.
Admittedly there is no privacy concern or other exception under the Open Records Act which served as the basis for redacting the entries relating to transactions undertaken by other individual employees. Instead, the School District marked the credit card statements in this way so as to highlight for Norris the specific information he sought relating to Superintendent Bernard's use of the credit card, and to avoid any appearance that all of the entries on the credit card statement reflected purchases undertaken by Superintendent Bernard. Nonetheless, if Mr. Norris desires to have copies of the credit card statements which reflect all purchases, rather than only those purchases undertaken by Superintendent Bernard, the School District would have no basis to object to such a request -- that is simply not the request which was received in September. 4
Although it would have been helpful, but not statutorily required, 5 for the board to include this explanation for the multiple redactions in its September 21 response, we affirm its ultimate disposition of Mr. Norris's request.
In
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Chestnut, 250 S.W.3d 655, 662 (Ky. 2008), the Kentucky Supreme Court expressed its agreement with "the District Court of Rhode Island's astute holding" that an open records request:
should not require the specificity and cunning of a carefully drawn set of discovery requests, so as to outwit narrowing legalistic interpretations by the government. A citizen should be able to submit a brief and simple request for the government to make full disclosure or openly assert its reasons for nondisclosure.
Chestnut, 250 S.W.3d at 662 quoting
Providence Journal Co. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 460 F.Supp. 778, 792 (D.R.I. 1978) reversed on other grounds on appeal 602 F.2d 1010 (1st Cir. 1979). This, Mr. Norris did, and the Clinton County Board of Education responded accordingly. While his intention may have been to include all school district employees using the district's single credit card within his request, the request, as submitted, was restricted to records reflecting Superintendent Bernard's 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 purchases, dates, and items. The Kentucky Supreme Court's position in Chestnut is a double-edged sword, and in this case the sword cuts in favor of the board's interpretation of Mr. Norris's request. We find no error in its disposition of that request.
Either party may appeal this decision 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.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 The board honored, in full, Mr. Norris's request for "meeting minutes for the July 2012 meeting" and for records reflecting Ms. Starnes's total compensation for the 2014-2015 school year.
2 Given the intervening weekend, this response was timely.
3 Existing legal authority supports the board's denial of duplicative requests and requests for nonexistent records. See, respectively, 15-ORD-023 and authorities cited therein and 15-ORD-018 and authorities cited therein. Copies of 15-ORD-023 and 15-ORD-018 are enclosed.
4 Mr. Norris submitted another request to the Clinton County Board of Education on November 23, 2015, seeking access to records reflecting all "purchases, dates, and items on the school district credit card for the years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, and 2014-2015." Because the November 23 request does not mirror Mr. Norris's earlier request, we cannot review the question of the board's disposition of that request in the appeal before us.
5 Since the redacted entries were not responsive to Mr. Norris's request, as construed by the board, the redactions did not constitute denial of a portion of his request and therefore did not trigger the board's duties under KRS 61.880(1). However, had Mr. Norris been informed that the redactions reflected purchases, dates, and items made by other district employees on the single district credit card, he would not have assumed that the redacted entries reflected the Superintendent's purchases. This appeal might, therefore, have been avoided.