The Kentucky Attorney General issued the following open records and open meetings decisions last week:
1. 22-ORD-166 (In re: Lawrence Trageser/Jeffersontown Fire Protection District)
Summary: The Jeffersontown Fire Protection District subverted the intent of the Open Records Act, within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4), when it failed to make public records available for inspection within five business days and then limited inspection to a specific time instead of making the records available during regular business hours. However, under the facts of this appeal, the District did not subvert the intent of the Act by designating a facility that was not “suitable” under KRS 61.872(1).
https://ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2022/22-ORD-166.pdf
2. 22-ORD-167 (In re: The Courier-Journal/Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government)
Summary: Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government subverted the intent of the Open Records Act, within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4), six times when it failed to respond to requests to inspect records within five business days, or when it delayed access to records under KRS 61.872(5) without informing the requester of the earliest date on which requested records would be available. The Act does not prohibit Metro from creating an internal administrative system to centralize its responses to requests submitted to various Metro departments. The Act prohibits Metro from requiring requesters to submit a request to inspect records using Metro’s NextRequest program.
https://ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2022/22-ORD-167.pdf
3. 22-ORD-168 (In re: Kurt Wallace/Kentucky Association of Counties)
Summary: The Kentucky Association of Counties did not violate the Open Records Act by asking a requester to provide a statement demonstrating how he qualifies as a resident of the Commonwealth under KRS 61.870(10).
https://ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2022/22-ORD-168.pdf
4. 22-ORD-169 (In re: Richard Hall/Marshall County School Board)
Summary: The Marshall County School Board violated the Open Records Act when it did not respond to a request within five business days, and when it delayed access to records without invoking KRS 61.872(5) or providing a detailed explanation for the cause of delay. The Office cannot decide factual disputes about whether additional records should exist.
https://ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2022/22-ORD-169.pdf
5. 22-ORD-170 (In re: Mark Graham/Todd County Board of Education)
Summary: The Todd County Board of Education did not violate the Open Records Act when it provided ten days to a former employee for the opportunity to file a civil action to prevent the release of records under Beckham v. Board of Education of Jefferson County, 873 S.W.2d 575 (Ky. 1994). A requester is not entitled to inspect the originals of redacted records. The Board did not show by clear and convincing evidence that repeat requests were intended to disrupt essential functions under KRS 61.872(6).
https://ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2022/22-ORD-170.pdf
6. 22-OMD-171 (In re: David Webster/Christian County Board of Education)
Summary: The Christian County Board of Education violated the Open Meetings Act when it failed to respond within three business days after receiving a complaint under the Act. The Board did not violate the public notice requirements of the Act, and did not violate the Act when it took action by voting at a regular meeting that it had informally described as a “workshop.”
https://ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2022/22-OMD-171.pdf
7. 22-ORD-172 (In re: Shannon Greer/Oldham County Central Dispatch)
Summary: The Oldham County Central Dispatch violated the Open Records Act when it did not post prominently on its website its rules and regulations regarding requests under the Act. The Central Dispatch’s redaction of a name from responsive records has been rendered moot.
https://ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2022/22-ORD-172.pdf
8. 22-ORD-173 (In re: Lawrence Trageser/Shelby County Clerk)
Summary: The Shelby County Clerk did not violate the Open Records Act when she permitted onsite inspection of records and further attempted to provide copies of requested records on a USB drive mailed to the requester.
https://ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2022/22-ORD-173.pdf
9. 22-ORD-174 (In re: Lawrence Trageser/Spencer County Board of Education)
Summary: The Spencer County Board of Education did not violate the Open Records Act when it denied a request for attorney work- product.
https://ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2022/22-ORD-174.pdf
10. 22-ORD-175 (In re: Phillip Hamm/McCracken County Sheriff’s Office)
Summary: The McCracken County Sheriff’s Office did not violate the Open Records Act when it issued a timely response to a request under the Act through a person acting under the authority of its official custodian of records.
https://ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2022/22-ORD-175.pdf
11. 22-ORD-176 (In re: Jason Howard/Kentucky Department of Education)
Summary: The Office cannot find that the Kentucky Department of Education violated the Open Records Act for failing to respond within five business days to a request it claims it did not receive. The Department’s initial responses failed to give detailed explanations for the cause of delay, as required under KRS 61.872(5), because the Department failed to quantify or estimate the number of potentially responsive records justifying the need for the stated delay. However, the Department’s delay in providing some responsive records was reasonable, and the Department has substantiated that portions of the request place an unreasonable burden on the Department.
