On April 25, we posted a link to the article embedded in this May 23 USA Today article. It concerns impediments to public access to records relating to police misconduct.
This afternoon, I will speak to a groups of new chiefs of police and sheriffs about the requirements of the open records law.
It is something I have done at least twice a year for many years at the invitation of the Criminal Justice Law Enforcement Training Center.
In addition to explaining the nuts and bolts of the open records law, I will try to instill in these officials an appreciation for the importance of the law and the immense value it provides in instilling trust in law enforcement. I am grateful for the twice yearly invitation to participate in the training sessions and promote a better understanding of, and appreciation for, the open records law.
But the records access issue persists.
In April, we wrote:
"This is a recurring problem in Kentucky. In the face of overwhelming legal authority mandating disclosure of disciplinary records relating to public employees, including law enforcement officers, state and local agencies continue to resist disclosure.
This was one of the underlying issues in recent cases involving public agency employees' and officials' misconduct at the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, the Finance Cabinet, the Labor Cabinet, the Transit Authority of River City (TARC), and the Lexington Fire Department.
The law is clear on the issue. The public has a right to know when public servants have breached the public trust. Law enforcement officers are invested with that trust to an even greater extent.
The 2019 legislative session witnessed an attempt to make the disciplinary records of law enforcement officers (along with several other categories of public employees) confidential. To his credit, the bill's sponsor withdrew that portion of his bill (which ultimately failed) in the face of overwhelming opposition.
But the threat continues to loom. Lawmakers do not shrink from secreting new exceptions to the public's right of access in unrelated bills and securing their passage through surreptitious means.
The same proposal might well be introduced in the next legislative session—along with numerous others that pose a serious threat to the public's right to know."
Since that post, we have been alerted to additional cases involving agency resistance to disclosure of records relating to public employee misconduct.
Most recently, we learned that the Kentucky State Police is suing WDRB to block disclosure of "response to resistance" reports. This is the latest in a list of names assigned to internal affairs investigative records/reports presumably reclassified in the hope of removing them from the well-established case law requiring access to records relating to police misconduct.
By any measure, public servants deserve our respect and trust. Contrary to popular belief, they are not overpaid and underworked bureaucrats who are solely motivated by job security, great benefits, and a bloated pension.
This is even more true of those who serve in law enforcement.
Law enforcement officers are invested with our ultimate trust. But when, on rare occasion, they breach that trust, they must be held accountable not only to the agency that employs them, but to the public.
This article describes an attempt in California to reverse years of statutorily sanctioned secrecy in matters relating to police misconduct and discipline. It suggest the degree of mistrust that now exists in that state as a result of secrecy.
Once again, Kentuckians should be grateful for an open records law that promotes transparency and "secures the public trust." Its something we take for granted.
We must fight to preserve it at all costs.
