The Kentucky Attorney General issued the following open records and open meetings decisions last week:
1) 23-ORD-335 (In re: James Harrison/Lee County Sheriff’s Office)
Summary: The Lee County Sheriff’s Office did not violate the Open Records Act when it could not provide records that it does not possess. However, the agency subverted the intent of the Act, within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4), when it delayed access to records by demanding the requester describe a record he sought with more specificity than the Act requires.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-335.pdf
2) 23-ORD-336 (In re: Rob Mattheu/Boyle County Board of Education)
Summary: The Boyle County Board of Education violated the Open Records Act when it required a requester to submit a request using a specific form. The Board also subverted the Act, within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4), when it imposed an excessive fee for reproducing electronic records and misdirected the requester to a website containing policies that were not requested.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-336.pdf
3) 23-ORD-337 (In re: Bradley Morris/Mayfield Police Department)
Summary: The Office cannot find that the Mayfield Police Department violated the Open Records Act because the Office cannot resolve the factual dispute between the parties.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-337.pdf
4) 23-ORD-338 (In re: Sasha Torchinsky/Kentucky Department of Corrections)
Summary: The Department of Corrections did not violate the Open Records Act when it denied a request for recorded telephone calls that would pose a security threat to the Department if released. KRS 197.025(1).
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-338.pdf
5) 23-OMD-339 (In re: The Bath County News Outlook/City of Sharpsburg)
Summary: The City of Sharpsburg violated the Open Meetings Act when it failed to issue a written response to a complaint within three business days. The Office cannot resolve the factual dispute of whether the City had received written notice of a media organization’s request under KRS 61.823(4) to receive notice of special meetings.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-OMD-339.pdf
6) 23-ORD-340 (In re: Michael A. Howard/Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex)
Summary: The Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex did not violate the Open Records Act when it partially denied a request for records that failed to describe the public records to be inspected.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-340.pdf
7) 23-ORD-341 (In re: Kentucky Innocence Project/Cabinet for Health and Family Services)
Summary: The Cabinet for Health and Family Services did not violate the Open Records Act when it could not provide records that do not exist.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-341.pdf
8) 23-ORD-342 (In re: Armando Arrastia/Energy and Environment Cabinet)
Summary: The Energy and Environment Cabinet did not violate the Open Records Act when it redacted private home addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses under KRS 61.878(1)(a).
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-342.pdf
