The Courier Journal reports:

"Though the [Louisville Metro Police Department] complaint process is largely governed by state law, one section in the propos[ed contract] would eliminate a requirement that unsworn, non-criminal complaints be destroyed after 90 days if the chief doesn't direct an investigation.

"In the records-retention section, the contract now defers to Louisville Metro's approved document retention policy, which requires the destruction of all informal complaints after two years.

"[Experts] said two years is not long enough to identify patterns of misconduct. Formal complaints and internal investigations are required to be kept for five years post-employment."

A 63 year old state public records program — I know because the program and I are the same age — established by law and mandatory for all state and local agencies has always governed these records.

Where LMPD got the idea that it could exempt itself from state regulation is beyond me.

Those of us who sat around the board room table at the Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives and dutifully hammered out retention periods for disciplinary records (including complaints against law enforcement officers and specifically Louisville Metro law enforcement officers) are more than mildly disappointed to learn that the department has apparently ignored the records schedule. There were many hard fought verbal battles on this particularly sensitive topic through the years.

(It is unavailing to argue that "informal complaints" do not appear in the schedule — only "formal complaints." An unscheduled public record is a permanent public record. It cannot be destroyed until it is assigned a retention period.")

https://kdla.ky.gov/records/recretentionschedules/Documents/Local%20Rec…

https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/kar/725/001/061.pdf

We are fortunate that no one ever filed a criminal complaint against LMPD for Tampering With a Public Record — a Class D felony under Kentucky's criminal code — based on premature destruction of a public record whose retention period has not expired.

(KRS 519.060(1)(b) states that a person is guilty of tampering with public records when, "knowing he lacks the authority to do so, he intentionally destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes, or otherwise impairs the availability of any public records.")

https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19864

One more thing. The notion of formal versus informal complaints is a false dichotomy — one rejected years ago by the Kentucky Court of Appeals in a case involving the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure.

("The Board's attempt to categorize complaints as formal public complaints and private individual complaints has no bearing on whether such complaints must be released.")

https://casetext.com/case/kentucky-st-bd-of-med-v-courier-journal

What this contract modification does, in reality, is require compliance with well-established legal authority under one of the country's oldest and most respected public records program. Not much progress there.