The Kentucky Attorney General issued the following open records decisions last week:
1. 24-ORD-149 (In re: Makeda Charles/Central State Hospital)
Summary: The Central State Hospital did not violate the Open Records Act when it did not provide records it does not possess.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2024-OROM/2024/24-ORD-149.pdf
2. 24-ORD-150 (In re: R. Stephen McGinnis/Russell City Clerk)
Summary: The Russell City Clerk violated the Open Records Act when it failed to properly invoke KRS 61.872(5) to delay the production of public records and subverted the intent of the Act, within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4), by delaying access to the requested records and engaging in excessive extensions of time.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2024-OROM/2024/24-ORD-150.pdf
3. 24-ORD-151 (In re: Leslie Lawson/Kentucky State Police)
Summary: The Kentucky State Police violated the Open Records Act when it failed to note certain documents were withheld in its response to a request for records. However, KSP did not violate the Act when it redacted personal identifying information under KRS 61.878(1)(a) and confidential information under KRS 17.150(4), or when it did not provide records that it does not possess or cannot locate based on the description provided in the request.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2024-OROM/2024/24-ORD-151.pdf
4. 24-ORD-152 (In re: Jewish Student Center/University of Kentucky)
Summary: The University of Kentucky violated the Open Records Act when it denied a request for records as unreasonably burdensome.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2024-OROM/2024/24-ORD-152.pdf
5. 24-ORD-153 (In re: Lexington Herald–Leader/University of Kentucky)
Summary: The University of Kentucky violated the Open Records Act when it partially denied a request for records without explaining how the cited exemptions applied to the records it withheld. On appeal, the University carried its burden of showing that KRS 61.878(1)(i) and KRS 61.878(1)(j) applied to withhold preliminary drafts and preliminary memoranda. The University also met its burden to show that the attorney-client privilege applied to certain disputed communications. However, the University violated the Act when it withheld a “Statement of Work” that was neither a preliminary draft nor a preliminary memorandum.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2024-OROM/2024/24-ORD-153.pdf
