The following Kentucky Attorney General Opinions and Open Records/Open Meetings Decisions were issued June 7 to 14 by the Office of the Attorney General. The summaries are listed here. To read the full decision in each case, go to https://ag.ky.gov/orom/Pages/2019-OROM.aspx
1. 19-ORD-107 (Franklin County)
The Department of Public Advocacy committed a procedural violation but did not subvert the intent of the Open Records Act by failing to provide a copy of records that do not exist.
2. 19-ORD-108 (Lyon County)
Information pertaining to Prison Rape Elimination Act complaints and investigations is confidential under 28 CFR 115.61(b) and KRS 61.878(1)(k).
3. 19-ORD-109 (Harlan County)
Because Harlan Circuit Court Clerk is not bound by the provisions of the Open Records Act according to 98-ORD-006, she did not violate the Act in the disposition of the request for records.
4. 19-ORD-110 (Muhlenberg County)
Green River Correctional Complex 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 portions thereof, which are part of the requested Extraordinary Occurrence Report, because disclosure would constitute a legitimate security threat and the records lacked a specific reference to inmate requester, respectively.
5. 19-ORD-111 (Lyon County)
Decision adopts 18-ORD-206; Kentucky State Penitentiary properly withheld records pertaining to Prison Rape Elimination Act complaint and investigation that were confidential under 28 CFR § 115.61(b) and KRS 61.878(1)(k).
6. 19-ORD-112 (Warren County)
Western Kentucky University did not violate the Act when it denied nonexistent records. WKU initially violated Act by failing to describe search bur corrected error on appeal. WKU properly withheld emails as preliminary.
7. 19-ORD-113 (Jefferson County)
Louisville Metro Police Department did not violate the Open Records Act in denying a request for a nonexistent record, namely, the arrest citation for a specified incident, and LMPD is not required to "prove a negative" in order to refute an unsubstantiated claim that such a record was created. However, LMPD violated KRS 61.880(1) by initially failing to affirmatively indicate whether the record existed; LMPD cured this deficiency on appeal.
