The Kentucky Attorney General issued the following open records and open meetings decisions last week:
1. 24-ORD-196 (In re: Patrick Cahill/University of Kentucky)
Summary: The University of Kentucky did not violate the Open Records Act when it denied a former student’s request for a copy of a hearing video under KRS 61.878(1)(k) and 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (FERPA), when the video recorded multiple students.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2024-OROM/2024/24-ORD-196.pdf
2. 24-ORD-197 (In re: Jeffrey Jobe/Boys and Girls Club of Glasgow/Barren County
Summary: The Boys and Girls Club of Glasgow/Barren County
is a public agency subject to the Open Records Act that must produce nonexempt, responsive records from fiscal years in which it meets the KRS 61.870(1)(h) definition of a public agency. Accordingly, it violated the Act when it failed to appropriately respond to a request to inspect records within five business days of receiving it. The Club did not violate the Act when it did not provide records that are not “public records” under KRS 61.870(2). The Club violated the Act when it denied a portion of the request because it had previously provided the requested records. The Club did not violate the Act when it did not provide records it does not possess. The Club did not violate the Act when it denied a request seeking information without describing any public records to be inspected.)
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2024-OROM/2024/24-ORD-197.pdf
3. 24-ORD-198 (In re: Jeffrey Jobe/Bridge Kentucky, Inc.)
Summary: Bridge Kentucky, Inc. is a public agency subject to the Open Records Act that must produce nonexempt, responsive records from fiscal years in which it meets the KRS 61.870(1)(h) definition of a public agency. Accordingly, it violated the Act when it failed to appropriately respond to a request to inspect records within five business days of receiving it. Bridge did not violate the Act when it did not provide records that are not “public records” under KRS 61.870(2). Bridge did not violate the Act when it did not provide records it does not possess. Bridge did not violate the Act when it denied a request seeking information without describing any public records to be inspected.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2024-OROM/2024/24-ORD-198.pdf
4. 24-ORD-199 (In re: Mark Alsip/Northern Kentucky Convention and Visitors Bureau)
Summary: The Northern Kentucky Convention and Visitors Bureau violated the Open Records Act when it failed to respond to a request made under the Act within five business days. The Bureau violated the Act when it denied the first part of the request as unreasonably burdensome. But the Bureau did not violate the Act when it denied the second part of the request that did not sufficiently describe the public records sought.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2024-OROM/2024/24-ORD-199.pdf
5. 24-OMD-200 (In re: Tina Burnell/Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government Ethics Commission)
Summary: The Office of the Attorney General lacks jurisdiction to consider a complaint alleging that the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government Ethics Commission violated the Open Meetings Act because the complaint was not first submitted to the presiding officer of the public agency accused of violating the Act.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2024-OROM/2024/24-OMD-200.pdf
6. 24-ORD-201 (In re: John Reynolds/Department of Education)
Summary: The Department of Education did not violate the Open Records Act when it withheld records created in the course of an ongoing investigation under KRS 61.878(1)(i) and (j).
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2024-OROM/2024/24-ORD-201.pdf
