Attorney General Daniel Cameron's announcement on January 21 that he has established a task force to review Kentucky's search warrant policies — in the wake of the Breonna Taylor shooting — met with considerable skepticism.

Critics questioned the under-representation of certain stakeholders on the task force, the failure to acknowledge ongoing legislative efforts to address search warrant policies, and the delayed timing of the effort.

The Kentucky Open Government Coalition focused on the open meetings implications of the task force's creation.

As an "entity when the majority of its governing body is appointed by a 'public agency'" and/or a "board, commission, committee, subcommittee, ad hoc committee, advisory committee, council, or agency established, created, and controlled by a 'public agency,'" the task force clearly falls within the definition of a "public agency" for open meetings purposes.

https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=23043

This means that it is subject — in every particular — to the requirements of the open meetings law.

Cameron's official statement did not acknowledge this fact, but a statement that appeared in The Courier Journal indicated that the task force's meetings would be "open to the public, in accordance to COVID-19 guidelines" and that it will "convene as often as necessary."

Not much in the way of detail to reassure us that the attorney general recognizes the task force's open meetings duties. This includes, but is not limited to, it's duty to comply with 20RS SB 150 relative to public notice and access during the state of emergency and its duty to comply with KRS 61.820 relative to adoption of a schedule of regular meetings.

https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/20rs/sb150.html

https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=42576

Some of these details may be addressed in the task force's as yet unscheduled first public meeting.

But Cameron's track record for task force transparency is not a good one.

In September 2020, American Oversight sued Cameron in Franklin Circuit Court for open records violations. American Oversight is identified in its complaint as "a nonpartisan organization primarily engaged in disseminating information to the public, promoting transparency in government activities, and ensuring the accountability of government officials."

https://americanoversight.org/document/complaint-american-oversight-v-k…

The issue in the case is Cameron's refusal to disclose records documenting the policies, agendas, meeting minutes, and similar records of the Ballot Integrity Task Force.

Cameron and Secretary of State Michael Adams established the task force in May 2020 to monitor the primary election and investigate and deter vote fraud.

https://www.thetimestribune.com/news/officials-create-ballot-integrity-…

Cameron denied American Oversight's requests for these records, invoking the "law enforcement" exception to the open records law along with the preliminary documents exceptions. The attorney general released a single document, the agenda for a May 19 meeting. The Office of the Secretary of State, on the other hand, produced multiple documents in response to American Oversight's open records request.

American Oversight appealed the denial of its request to the attorney general who, predictably, affirmed his own denial and the circuit court action followed.

https://ag.ky.gov/Priorities/Government-Transparency/orom/2020/20-ORD-1…

While it remains for the Franklin Circuit Court to determine the propriety of the attorney general's nearly blanket denial of American Oversight's open records request, it is deeply disturbing to learn that he and his office was unable or unwilling to produce meeting notices, meeting agendas, and meeting minutes.

Although the issue of the open meetings law to the Ballot Integrity Task Force was apparently never raised, it, too, almost certainly qualified as a public agency for open meetings purposes.

This does not bode well for open meetings compliance by Attorney General Daniel Cameron's newly created Search Warrant Task Force.

If it is to be done, let it be done in an open, public manner that is fully consistent with state open government laws.