The following Attorney General Opinions and Open Records/Open Meetings Decisions were issued by the Office of the Attorney General last week. The summaries are listed here. To read the full text in each case, go to the link. https://ag.ky.gov/orom/Pages/2019-OROM.aspx

1. 19-ORD-194 (Franklin County)Kentucky State University violated the Open Records Act by failing to cite an exception underKRS 61.878(1) and identify public records responsive to a request, and by denying inspection ofrecords relating to a deceased adult student that KSU had designated "directory information"under FERPA.

2. 19-ORD-195 (Franklin County)Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Department for Aging and Independent Living violatedthe Open Records Act in failing to either comply with all requirements of KRS 61.880(1), orproperly invoke KRS 61.872(5), if appropriate. Because CHFS declined to provide unredactedcopies of the records in dispute to Attorney General for in camera review per KRS 61.880(2)(c)and 40 KAR 1:030 Section 3 on appeal, it failed to satisfy its burden of justifying the partialdenial of the request.

3. 19-ORD-196 (Jefferson County)Louisville Metro Government violated the Open Records Act by failing to timely produceresponsive records, as required by KRS 61.880(1), and by failing to properly invoke KRS61.872(5) and provide the statutorily required adequate explanation of the cause for delay.Louisville Metro failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to meet its burden of provingthe request created an unreasonable burden, and subverted the intent of the Act within themeaning of KRS 61.880(4).

4. 19-ORD-197 (Kenton County)City of Covington Police Department did not violate the Open Records Act by redactingCriminal Justice Information Services information from body-worn camera footage as permittedby KRS 17.150(4), or by failing to provide nonexistent records. Because the city subsequentlyrecalculated its fee to reflect its actual costs per KRS 61.874(3), it did not subvert the intent ofthe Act, within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4), by charging an excessive fee.

5. 19-ORD-198 (Jefferson County)Louisville Metro Police Department ("LMPD") violated KRS 61.880(1) by failing to search forresponsive records, and by failing to cite a statutory basis for withholding responsive records,but partially corrected the error on appeal. LMPD also violated the Open Records Act byinitially denying the request based on an erroneous presumption of non-possession of requestedrecords. LMPD failed to meet its burden of proof in withholding the responsive records.

6. 19-ORD-199 (Fayette County)University of Kentucky did not violate the Open Records Act by redacting incident report regarding a complaint of sexual assault where release of redacted details would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. University violated procedural requirementsof the Act by failing to respond to the open records request within three days, and by notexplaining the reason for delay. University initially failed to cite the exception it relied upon inredacting details of the police incident report, but corrected that error in subsequentcorrespondence with requester.

7. 19-ORD-200 (Lyon County)Inmate's first appeal was unperfected as it did not include a copy of the response from KentuckyState Penitentiary ("KSP") to his request. Second appeal of same request was perfected, but KSP cannot produce nonexistent records for inspection or copying nor is KSP required to"prove a negative" in order to refute an unsubstantiated assertion that a letter, or responsethereto, was created or exists. In the absence of any facts or evidence from which the existenceof responsive documents can be presumed, this office has no basis upon which to find that KSPviolated the Open Records Act in denying request.