Opinion
Opinion By: Daniel Cameron, Attorney General; James M. Herrick, Assistant Attorney General
Summary : City of Ravenna ("City") did not violate the Open Records Act ("the Act") by failing to provide records that it did not possess.
Open Records Decision
On July 16, 2020, William Van Cleve ("Appellant") requested copies of "all records of expenditures from [the City's] Municipal Road Aid and Local Government Economic Assistance Funds" from July 1, 2016, through July 15, 2020. The City has provided all responsive records within its possession. This appeal is therefore moot as to the records the City has provided. 40 KAR 1:030 § 6.
The City was unable to provide two invoices from Miller Maintenance Company because they are not within its possession. But the City has no duty or obligation to provide records it does not possess, and Appellant has made no prima facie showing that the requested records exist in the agency's possession.
Bowling v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cty. Gov't , 172 S.W.3d 333, 341 (Ky. 2005). Therefore, this Office is unable to find that the City violated the Act. 1
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 shall be notified of any action in circuit court, but shall not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 Although it has no obligation to do so under the Act, the City is attempting to obtain copies of those invoices to provide to Appellant.