The following Attorney General Opinions and Open Records/Open Meetings Decisions were issued last week by the Office of the Attorney General. The summaries are listed here. To read the full decisions, go to https://ag.ky.gov/orom/Pages/2019-OROM.aspx
1.â19-ORD-114 (Oldham County)
Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center did not violate the Open Records Act by declining to provide court ordered competency evaluation to inmate where court order determines distribution of those records.
2.â19-ORD-115 (Franklin County)
State Board of Elections subverted the intent of the Open Records Act by charging fees for blank copies and violated the Act by failing to respond to a follow-up request for records. Copying fee for records provided in hard copy was proper where request did not designate electronic format.
3.â19-ORD-116 (Hardin County)
Radcliff Police Department violated the Open Records Act by failing to make a timely response to an open records request, failing to explain the nonexistence of certain recorded communications, and failing to respond to some portions of a request. Agency did not violate the Act where a request was for information rather than records, or where records did not exist and the facts established no presumption of their existence.
4.â19-ORD-117 (Jefferson County)
Louisville Metro Police Department did not violate Open Records Act where it possessed no records responsive to the request.
5.â19-ORD-118 (Franklin County)
SBE violated KRS 61.880(1). SBE violated the Act by applying watermarks to responsive records. SBE violated Act by assessing copying fees for hard copies requested in electronic format. SBE properly withheld records as preliminary and as attorney-client communications.
6.â19-ORD-119 (Franklin County)
State Board of Elections violated the Open Records Act by failing to state the statutory exceptions and provide brief explanations for redactions to legal billing records. Board violated the Act in failing to respond to a follow-up request for records in digital format and in placing watermark and page numbers on copies. Board did not violate the Act in redacting attorney-client communications in legal billing. Board properly charged a copying fee for records provided in hard copy where request did not designate digital format. Office of the Attorney General does not have statutory authority to assess fines against public agency regarding response to open records request.
7.â19-ORD-120 (Franklin County)
âKentucky State Board of Elections ("SBE") violated KRS 61.880(1) by failing to include a statement of the specific exception authorizing the withholding of records and a brief explanation of how the exception applied to the records withheld. SBE violated the Act when it applied page numbers to copies of responsive records. SBE properly withheld email messages that were preliminary pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(i) and (j) and pursuant to the homeland security exception at KRS 61.878(1)(m). SBE did not violate KRS 61.874(2)(a) by failing to provide digital copies, but did violate by charging for blank copies. The Attorney General has no authority to impose monetary penalties in an open records appeal.
8.â19-ORD-121 (McCracken County)
The City of Paducah violated the Open Records Act in failing to provide a sufficiently detailed explanation of the cause for delaying access to records per KRS 61.872(5) upon which it relied implicitly in delaying access beyond the period allowed for a final response under KRS 61.880(1). Further, the City subverted the intent of the Act, short of denial and within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4), by failing to provide the requester with timely access to records it ultimately provided.
9.â19-ORD-122 (Jackson County)
Jackson County Sheriff's Office violated the Open Records Act by failing to respond to Appellant's request for records.
