NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
In re: Donald J. Ruberg/Campbell County Cable Board
This is an appeal from the Campbell County Cable Board's response
to two open records requests submitted by Donald J. Ruberg. Because
the Board's responses to Mr. Ruberg's requests raise common questions
of law, they are consolidated for purposes of appeal. The questions
presented in these appeals center on the procedural obligations
of a public agency in responding to an open records request, and
its substantive obligations relative to disclosure of public records.
For the reasons which follow, we find that the Cable Board's
responses were both procedurally deficient and substantively violative
of the Open Records Act.
On June 26, 1997, Mr. Ruberg requested copies of various operational
and financial records of the Campbell County Cable Board including
all invoices evidencing bills which were paid at the June 24,
1997, Cable Board meeting, and all correspondence submitted to
the Board at that meeting. Although the Cable Board promptly
responded to this request by releasing certain of the identified
records and denying the existence of others, the Board notified
Mr. Ruberg that the invoices and correspondence could "be
reviewed at [the] Board office." Mr. Ruberg arranged to
review the records on July 2, 1997, but upon arrival discovered
that invoices reflecting payment to Board attorneys Rita Stull
and Robin Harvey had been removed on Ms. Harvey's instructions.
Mr. Ruberg then asked Ms. Harvey if he would be permitted to
review the invoices, and was advised that she would first have
to review them.
Having apparently received no word from Ms. Harvey, on July 8,
1997, Mr. Ruberg resubmitted his request to the Cable Board, identifying
four other categories of records with which he wished to be provided
copies. In general, these records related to contractual agreements
between the Cable Board and Ms. Stull and the Cable Board and
Ms. Harvey, as well as billing statements submitted by Ms. Stull
and Ms. Harvey. As of July 17, 1997, Mr. Ruberg had received
no response to this request. On July 28, this office received
a copy of a July 24 letter from Mr. Ruberg to Ms. Harvey. In
that letter, he references a July 18 letter
from Ms. Harvey in which she indicated she is producing copies
of the "remaining statements." Mr. Ruberg complains
to Ms. Harvey that the attachments omit an invoice for $10,860.16,
approved at the June 24 meeting. Although Mr. Ruberg's letter
does not specifically so state, we infer that the as yet unreleased
paid invoice was for Ms. Stull or Ms. Harvey's legal services.
In his letter, Mr. Ruberg also challenges the Cable Board's heavy
handed redaction of nonexempt information appearing on the invoices
released to him. Finally, Mr. Ruberg objects to Ms. Harvey's
statement that she will respond to the remainder of his July 8
request at her earliest convenience, noting that KRS 61.880(1)
requires a written agency response within three business days.
We first examine the procedural issues in this appeal. We focus
on two provisions of the Open Records Act which establish guidelines
for agency response to records requests: KRS 61.872(3) and KRS
61.880(1). KRS 61.872(3)(a) and (b) provide:
(3) A person may inspect the public records:
(a) During the regular office hours of the
public agency; or
(b) By receiving copies of the public records
from the public agency through the mail. The public agency shall
mail copies of the public records to a person whose residence
or principal place of business is outside the county in which
the public records are located after he precisely describes the
public records which are readily available within the public agency.
If the person requesting the public records requests that copies
of the records be mailed, the official custodian shall mail the
copies upon receipt of all fees and the cost of mailing.
In a recent decision, this office recognized:
The Open Records Act . . . contemplates records access by one
of two means: On-site inspection during the regular office hours
of the agency, in suitable facilities provided by the agency,
or receipt of the records from the agency through the mail. Thus,
a requester who both lives and works in the same county where
the public records are located may be required to inspect the
records prior to receiving copies. A requester who lives or works
in a county other than the county where the public records are
located may demand that the agency provide him with copies of
records, without inspecting those records, if he precisely describes
the records and they are readily available within the agency.
97-ORD-46, p. 2, 3. Mr. Ruberg states that he both lives and
works outside of Campbell County. He has described in definite,
specific, and unequivocal terms the records he wishes to access
by mail. The Cable Board has not stated that the records he seeks
are not "readily available within the public agency."
Under these circumstances, the Board violated the Open Records
Act by requiring him to inspect the records in its office prior
to receiving copies.
Turning to the second provision, KRS 61.880(1) states:
Each public agency, upon any request for records
made under KRS 61.870 to 61.884, shall determine within three
(3) days, excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, after
the receipt of any such request whether to comply with the request
and shall notify in writing the person making the request, within
the three (3) day period, of its decision. An agency response
denying, in whole or in part, inspection of any record shall include
a statement of the specific exception authorizing the withholding
of the record and a brief explanation of how the exception applies
to the record withheld. The response shall be issued by the official
custodian or under his authority, and it shall constitute final
agency action.
Although its initial written response to Mr. Ruberg was timely,
the Board withheld certain invoices on Ms. Harvey's instructions.
The Board did not provide an explanation of the cause of the
delay and indicate the earliest date on which the invoices would
be available per KRS 61.872(5), or, alternatively, cite the specific
exception authorizing the withholding of the records and briefly
explain how it applies to the records withheld per KRS 61.880(1).
Aside from KRS 61.872(5), the Open Records Act does not recognize
any other legitimate basis for enlargement of agency response
time. The Act is clear in delineating an agency's duties when
it denies, even in part, an open records request. The Campbell
County Cable Board violated KRS 61.880(1) by failing to adequately
explain the nonproduction of invoices reflecting payments to Ms.
Stull and Ms. Harvey. Needless to say, the Cable Board's inaction
relative to Mr. Ruberg's July 8 request constitutes a violation
of this provision as well.
With respect to the substantive issues in this appeal, this office
has made clear its position on the duty to disclose invoices generally,
and attorney billing statements specifically. For example, in
93-ORD-58 we analyzed the agency's obligation to release various
records generated in the course of litigation. At page 3, we
observed:
The public is . . . entitled to review the contracts, vouchers,
and other business records of a public agency, including records
of payments made to attorneys, and bills and statements submitted
to an agency by its attorneys. Should these invoices and billing
statements disclose substantive legal matters protected by the
attorney client privilege, and exempt under KRS 61.878(1)[(l)],
the exempt material should be separated by the nonexempt material,
and the nonexempt material released for inspection. OAG 92-14;
OAG 92-92.
93-ORD-58, p. 3. We believe that these principles apply with
equal force to the open records dispute between Mr. Ruberg and
the Cable Board. The Cable Board violated the Open Records Act
by withholding invoices, contracts, and billing statements by
and between the Board and its attorneys. The Campbell County
Cable Board is directed to immediately respond to Mr. Ruberg's
request by sending him copies of these records, subject to the
principles set forth in the cited decisions, copies of which are
enclosed.
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.
A. B. Chandler III
Attorney General
Amye L. Bensenhaver
Assistant Attorney General
#761
Distributed to:
Donald J. Ruberg
O'Hara, Ruberg, Taylor Sloan and Sergent
P. O. Box 17411
Covington KY 41017-0411
Robin E. Harvey
Baker & Hostetler
Suite 2650
312 Walnut Street
Cincinnati OH 45202-4038
Kirt Rockel
Campbell County Cable Board
175 Johns Hill Road
Highland Heights KY 41076