Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear,Attorney General;James M. Herrick,Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the City of Allen violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of Mary Meadows' February 10, 2016, requests for certain financial records and meeting minutes of the city. For the reasons that follow, we find no violation of the Act.
Ms. Meadows, a reporter for the Floyd County Chronicle , issued six separate requests on February 10, 2016, for the following items:
1 A detailed list of all bills paid by the City of Allen from January 1, 2015 through February 1, 2016.
2. A copy of the City of Allen's most recent financial audit.
3. A detailed list of all payments and/or bonuses to Allen City Commissioners and the Allen City Mayor from January 1, 2015 through February 1, 2016.
4. A copy of the city's current fiscal year budget.
5. A detailed list of all payroll disbursements for the City of Allen from January 1, 2015 through February 1, 2016.
6. Permission to review City Meeting minutes from January 1, 2015 through February 1, 2016, as they are recorded at City Hall.
On February 12, 2016, Mayor Sharon Woods responded by inviting Ms. Meadows to inspect the city bills and meeting minutes at City Hall during regular business hours and advising that other records were not readily available:
[S]ome of the documents you requested are not in the immediate possession of the Allen City Clerk and have been requested from the sources who have those items in their possession. The Allen City's most recent financial audit and current fiscal year budget are in the possession of David Garrett, CPA and the copies you requested will be available for pick up at City Hall on February 19, 2016. Payroll is managed by Angie Kidd, Finance Clerk and she currently has all that information. Ms. Kidd will have all those copies of payroll disbursements and all payments and/or bonuses to Allen City Commissioners and the Allen City Mayor for January 1, 2015 through February 1, 2016 available to you on February 19, 2016.
On April 8, 2016, this office received an appeal from Floyd County Chronicle editor Russ Cassady bearing the date March 28, 2016. He complained that the city produced "a stack of bills" rather than a list, and that "many bills ? were not itemized, many did not contain checks attached to prove payment, and the stack of bills did not include bills for several items the city agreed to purchase during the time frame reviewed." Mr. Cassady further objected that the city budget "did not include a list of revenues" and that the financial audit had not yet been provided.
City Attorney Bethany M. Shortridge responded to the appeal on April 18, 2016. She advised that the city's most recent financial audit (from 2002) had been provided to Ms. Meadows on April 5, 2016, and the current budget had been provided to her on February 22, 2016. 1 She further stated that the city had allowed Ms. Meadows to review its bills and disbursement records in lieu of a "detailed list" of bills, payments and/or bonuses, and payroll disbursements, since no such lists existed.
With regard to the audit, budget, and meeting minutes, we find this appeal moot, since access to those records has been granted. ( See 40 KAR 1:030, Section 6.) The fact that the budget may not have included the specific information desired by Mr. Cassady does not constitute a violation of the Open Records Act.
As for the three "detailed lists" which the city did not possess, a public agency cannot afford a requester access to a record that it does not have or that does not exist. 99-ORD-98. The agency discharges its duty under the Open Records Act by affirmatively so stating. 99-ORD-150. The Act "does not require public agencies to carry out research or compile information to conform to a given request." OAG 89-45. Thus, agencies "are not obligated to compile a list or create a record to satisfy an open records request." OAG 76-375. We therefore find no substantive violation of the Act. 2
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 proceedings.
Footnotes
Footnotes