By Joe Biesk
The Associated Press

FRANKFORT - Madison County officials did not fully comply with a citizen's Open Records Act request for building-permit financial records, the Attorney General's Office has concluded.

Richmond resident Charles W. Riddell in August 2001 had requested access to various county treasurer's receipts for building permit and electrical inspection fees. He asked the Attorney General's Office to decide whether the Madison County judge-executive, treasurer and a planning and development administrator violated the state law with their response.

In response to Riddell's request, county officials provided him a copy of a letter from Duane Curry, the Madison County Planning and Development Office's administrator, to Judge-executive Kent Clark. In the letter, Curry told Clark his staff "could not find" where his office "generates a public document that would contain all of the exact information Mr. Riddell ... requested."

Riddell had made earlier requests in January and July 2001. After Riddell reviewed the records response, he found what he called "a number of discrepancies."

That prompted him to make another request that August.

In August, Riddell received a summary of information he was provided following the earlier request. Curry also gave written narratives, rather than records, to fulfill the rest of Riddell's request.

Not satisfied with the response, Riddell appealed to the attorney general, whose opinions are binding in disputes over public records and public meetings.

In the opinion, Assistant Attorney General Amye L. Bensenhaver sided with Riddell.

"While the Madison County officials went beyond their duty in creating this record, we find that the requirements of the statute are not fully discharged until Mr. Riddell is afforded an opportunity to inspect existing documents substantiating that information," Bensenhaver wrote.

Meanwhile, the attorney general's office also concluded the Warren County Circuit Court clerk did not violate the law in response to a records request.

Because the court is not bound by the Open Records Act, it did not violate it when it denied James L. Stokes's request for a copy of the court's docket, Bensenhaver wrote.