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. Go to https://ag.ky.gov/orom/Pages/2019-OROM.aspx to read the full text in each case.
1.â19-ORD-148 (Meade County)
Meade County Attorney did not violate Open Records Act in denying request for criminal litigation records on the basis of KRS 61.878(1)(h); decision adopts 00-ORD-116.
2.â19-ORD-149 (Boyle County)
Northpoint Training Center properly relied upon KRS 197.025(1) and 197.025(2), both of which are incorporated into the Open Records Act by operation of KRS 61.878(1)(l), in withholding certain records and redacting certain portions of the Extraordinary Occurrence Report, because disclosure would constitute a legitimate security threat and the records lacked a specific reference to inmate requester.
3.â19-ORD-150 (Lee County)
Lee Adjustment Center ("LAC") did not violate the Open Records Act in denying a request for nonexistent record, and was not required to "prove a negative" in order to refute an unsubstantiated claim that the records was created. However, LAC initially violated KRS 61.880(1) by failing to confirm or deny whether the record existed, and was unable to discharge this duty because it did not conduct a search for the record, but LAC remedied this deficiency on appeal.
4.â19-ORD-151 (Franklin County)
Kentucky Department of Education violated KRS 61.880(1) by untimely responding to request and failing to explain application of open records exceptions. Department subverted intent of Open Records Act by imposing improper copying fees and delaying response with boilerplate language in lieu of detailed explanation required by KRS 61.872(5), and substantively violated KRS 61.874(2)(a) by attempting to provide paper copies where the request designated electronic copies. Applicability of exceptions under KRS 61.878(1) rendered moot issue where records were nonresponsive to request.
5.â19-ORD-152 (Franklin County)
Franklin County Attorney properly withheld criminal investigation record under prosecutors' exemption, but initially failed to provide a detailed explanation as to the basis for withholding the record. Appellant's claim that County Fiscal Court should have had a copy of the requested record and provided it to her was not a perfected appeal and this office therefore does not have jurisdiction to decide that matter. County Jailer did not have a copy of the requested record and so could not provide it to Appellant. County Jailer violated KRS 61.880(1) by failing to respond within three days of request as to whether it would comply with request for records.
6.â19-ORD-153 (Lyon County)
Kentucky State Penitentiary violated KRS 197.025(7) by failing to make a timely disposition of an open records request, but did not violate the Open Records Act by refusing to fulfill a second request for the same records.
7.â19-ORD-154 (Oldham County)
Kentucky State Reformatory ("KSR") initially violated Act by failing to confirm or deny whether responsive records existed because it failed to conduct a search, but remedied the error on appeal. KSR did not violate the Open Records Act in requiring inmate requester to comply with relevant provisions of CPP 6.1 or in denying a request for records in the possession of the records custodian of another correctional facility.
8.â19-ORD-155 (Lyon County)
Inmate requester initiated his appeal prematurely under KRS 197.025(7) by filing it on the fifth working day following receipt of the request and not allowing time for mail delivery. Kentucky State Penitentiary ultimately provided the requester with a copy of all existing responsive documents, mooting the related issues are now moot per 40 KAR 1:030 Section 6.
