The following Kentucky Attorney General Opinions and Open Records/Open Meetings Decisions were issued last week. The summaries are provided here. To read the full text, go to: https://ag.ky.gov/Priorities/Government-Transparency/orom/Pages/2020-OR…

1. 20-ORD-013 (Franklin County)

Kentucky State University ("KSU") lawfully denied inspection of an employee's performance evaluation under KRS 61.878(1)(a), but violated the Open Records Act ('the Act") by denying access to payroll records and a grievance. KSU also violated the act by failing to specify the purpose for redactions, perform an adequate search for records, address a portion of a request, or respond to portions of requests. KSU subverted the intent of the Act by requiring an appointment to inspect records and prohibiting use of a personal device to copy records.

2. 20-ORD-014 (Graves County)

Graves County Board of Elections ("the Board") violated the Open Records Act ("the Act") by failing to issue a complete and timely disposition of a request for records.

3. 20-ORD-015 (Muhlenberg County)

Green River Correctional Complex ("GRCC") violated the Open Records Act ("Act") when it failed to explain how the exception it relied upon to deny an inmate's open records request applied to the records withheld. However, GRCC did not violate the Act in withholding portions of the requested records that contained information GRCC deemed would constitute a threat to the security of the inmate requester, other inmates, correctional staff, and the institution if disclosed. KRS 197.025(1), incorporated into the Act by KRS 61.878(1)(l), authorized GRCC to deny access to the records withheld. Issues regarding those records to which GRCC already granted the requester access have been rendered moot per 40 KAR 1:030 § 6.

4. 20-ORD-016 (Fayette County)

The Lexington Public Library ("LPL") violated the Open Records Act ("Act") in failing to explain with sufficient detail how the cited exceptions applied to specific records it withheld as required under KRS 61.880(1). Because LPL did not provide the particularized justification that KRS 61.880(1) requires in its original response to the requester, it did not satisfy its burden of justifying the denial for records it withheld (or portions it redacted) pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(a), (i), and (j). LPL was required under KRS 61.878(4) to separate any non-exempt material from exempt material rather than deny access to certain records entirely.

5. 20-ORD-017 (Franklin County)

Request for "documents evidencing communications" by the Governor or his administrative staff with the Department of Highways on certain subjects, which was unlimited in temporal scope, did not comply with KRS 61.872(3)(b), which requires a request for copies by mail to describe records precisely.

6. 20-OMD-018 (Fayette County)

A circuit judge is not subject to the provisions of the Open Meetings Act and the Attorney General accordingly lacks jurisdiction over an appeal against a court.

7. 20-ORD-019 (McCracken County)

City of Paducah ("City") violated the Open Records Act ("the Act") because it did not meet its burden to support redacting a hotel market study under KRS 61.878(1)(c)1. Information is only exempt when it is confidentially disclosed to an agency and generally recognized as confidential or proprietary, and its disclosure would permit an unfair commercial advantage to competitors.

8. 20-ORD-020 (Lyon County)

Kentucky State Penitentiary ("KSP") did not violate the Open Records Act ("Act") when it denied an inmate's request for copies of merit status policies because the records did not contain a specific reference to him, as permitted by KRS 197.025(2).