Of course, there is no direct evidence to support the belief expressed in the Twitter exchange below, but it's fair to say that there is no other plausible explanation for the particular section of the 2019 HB 387 relating to preliminary documents.

HB 387 began as a bill aimed at restricting the public's right to know how the state incentivizes economic development — a deeply disturbing backstory in itself — but it gained steam as a proposal to eviscerate the open records law by doing everything from restricting its use to Kentucky residents to eliminating the right of citizens to appeal the legislature's denial of open records requests for its own records to the courts.

It's unlikely that the decision to introduce language aimed at restricting access to preliminary recommendations and preliminary memoranda in which opinions are expressed to those that are "incorporated into final findings, order, or record" -- as the bill would have done, if enacted, was purely coincidental.

Under the current law, preliminary recommendations and memoranda forfeit protection under the preliminary documents exception if they are adopted as the basis of final action — even if they are not incorporated by reference into, or physically attached to, the record reflecting final agency action.

Had the bill passed, and had the governor's counsel's argument carried the day, the public's right to know how policy is formed and decisions are made would have been severely circumscribed.

Thankfully, the public outcry against the bill, coupled with the efforts of the Kentucky Press Association and others, resulted in its defeat.

It was tabled for discussion during the interim, and there is every reason to believe it will be back in 2020.