Opinion ID: 1766622
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the university's entire response is subject to disclosure under the kentucky open records act

Text: KRS 61.872 provides that all public records shall be open for inspection by any person, except as otherwise provided by KRS 61.870 to 61.884 . . . The Act defines a public record as: [A]ll books, papers, maps, photographs, cards, tapes, discs, diskettes, recordings or other documentary materials regardless of physical form or characteristics, which are prepared, owned, used, in possession of or retained by a public agency. KRS 61.870(2). It is clear that the University is a public agency and that the entire Response submitted by the University to the NCAA constitutes a public record. The General Assembly created certain exemptions to disclosure under the Act. However, it placed the burden on public agencies to prove that a public record is exempt from disclosure and stated that the exemptions to public disclosure shall be strictly construed even though such examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment to public officials or others. KRS 61.882(4). The University contends that Parts Two and Three of the Response are exempt from disclosure under KRS 61.878(1)(a), (f), (g), and (h). Those subsections exempt from public disclosure: (a) Public records containing information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; . . . . . (f) Records of law enforcement agencies or agencies involved in administrative adjudication that were compiled in the process of detecting and investigating statutory or regulatory violations if the disclosure of the information would harm the agency by revealing the identity of informants not otherwise known or by premature release of information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action or administrative adjudication. Unless exempted by other provision of KRS 61.870 to 61.884, public records exempted under this provision shall be open after enforcement action is completed or a decision is made to take no action. Provided, however, that the exemptions provided by this subsection shall not be used by the custodian of the records to delay or impede the exercise of rights granted by KRS 61.872 and 61.884; . . . . . (g) preliminary drafts, notes, correspondence with private individuals, other than correspondence which is intended to give notice of final action of a public agency; (h) preliminary recommendations, and preliminary memoranda in which opinions are expressed or policies formulated or recommended. KRS 61.878(1)(a) does not exempt the Response from disclosure. We held in McCall v. Courier Journal and Louisville Times Co., Ky., 623 S.W.2d 882, 887 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 975, 102 S.Ct. 2239, 72 L.Ed.2d 849 (1982), that the right of privacy does not prohibit any publication of a matter which is of public or general interest. The Response represents a legitimate inquiry into the operation of an agency of the Commonwealth. One of the purposes of the Act is to allow the public to scrutinize the action of such agencies. The University spent over $400,000.00 for the Response and the public has a legitimate interest in its contents. The contents of the Response are a matter of public interest and release would not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Consequently, the Response is not exempt under KRS 61.878(1)(a). The exemption set forth in KRS 61.878(1)(f), is also inapplicable. This exemption applies only to law enforcement agencies or agencies involved in administrative adjudication. The University cannot seriously contend that it is a law enforcement agency. Moreover, the University itself conceded that the NCAA, a private regulatory entity, is the only agency involved in administrative adjudication. Therefore, KRS 61.878(1)(f) would not apply. Furthermore, the exemption does not apply after enforcement action is completed or a decision is made to take no action. [2] The University's argument that the requested materials are exempt under KRS 61.878(1)(g) and (h) is also without merit. These subsections exempt only documents which are preliminary in nature. The Response signed by the University's president and submitted to the NCAA constituted the final result of an extensive investigation. The entire Response was submitted to the NCAA by the University and there is no rational basis for the trial court's decision that parts of the Response were subject to disclosure while other parts were exempt. The Response was merely divided into parts by the trial court for the purpose of easy reference. This does not and cannot change the undisputed fact that the entire report was submitted to the NCAA and that the portions of the Response referred to by the trial court collectively constitute the University's Response. The fact that the Response was submitted prior to final action by the NCAA is irrelevant. The only agency subject to the provisions of the Act is the University. The submission of the report to the NCAA by the University constitutes final action of the University, an agency subject to the disclosure requirements contained in the Act. Further, investigative materials that were once preliminary in nature lose their exempt status once they are adopted by the agency as part of its action. See, e.g., City of Louisville v. Courier Journal and Louisville Times, Ky.App., 637 S.W.2d 658 (1982) and Kentucky State Board of Medical Licensure v. Courier Journal and Louisville Times Co., Ky.App., 663 S.W.2d 953 (1983). We agree with the Court of Appeals that once the University made full and complete disclosure of the materials contained in the Response to the NCAA, it subjected these documents to full disclosure once the University's action became final. The documents sought by the Appellees are not protected from disclosure by the exemptions of subsections (1)(g) and (1)(h).