The following Opinions and Open Records/Open Meetings Decisions were issued by the Office of the Kentucky Attorney General. 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-181 (Jefferson County)

Kentucky Commission on Human Rights did not violate the Open Records Act by withholding information and records pursuant to the prohibition against disclosure at KRS 344.250(6). Commission's initial response violated the Act in failing to provide a sufficiently detailed explanation of the cause for delaying access to existing responsive documents as required by KRS 61.872(5), but it corrected that error in its subsequent response to Appellant three days later.

2. 19-ORD-182 (Fayette County)

Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government violated Open Records Act by responding untimely and by denying request for e-mails, where no search was conducted to determine a minimum number of responsive e-mails based on revised request, and thus no unreasonable burden was shown by clear and convincing evidence. Requirement for precise description of records under KRS 61.872(3)(b) does not apply to requests for onsite inspection.

3. 19-ORD-183 (Fayette County)

Because inmate requester attempted to initiate his appeal prior to expiration of the time frame in which the Fayette County Detention Center ("FCDC") was required to issue a written response under KRS 197.025(7), and thus failed to provide this office with a copy of the response per KRS 61.880(2)(a), this office is precluded from addressing the merits of his appeal per 40 KAR 1:030, Section 1.

4. 19-ORD-184 (Floyd County)

City of Martin violated the Open Records Act in failing to either comply with all requirements of KRS 61.880(1) upon receipt of request, or properly invoke KRS 61.872(5) by citing that provision and providing a legitimate detailed explanation of the cause for delay and the specific date when the records would be available. The City also subverted the intent of the Act, short of denial and within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4), in failing to provide timely access to all existing documents responsive to request.

5. 19-ORD-185 (Franklin County)

Existing legal authority construing KRS 61.878(1)(a) permits the Office of the Governor to withhold the home addresses of private individuals whose voting rights have been restored in response to a request made by the Secretary of State's Office under the Open Records Act. However, the agency's initial and supplemental responses lacked the specificity required under KRS 61.880(1). Because KRS 61.878(5) is permissive, rather than mandatory, the denial by the Governor's Office does not constitute a violation of the Act.

6. 19-ORD-186 (Lyon County)

This office has no basis upon which to find the Lyon County Attorney's Office violated the Open Records Act in failing to issue a timely written response per KRS 61.880(1), because the office cannot resolve a factual dispute concerning the actual delivery and receipt of the request for records. Lyon County Attorney's Office discharged its duty under the Act in conducting a reasonable search for the requested records and explained their nonexistence.