The Kentucky Attorney General issued the following open records and open meetings decisions last week:
1. 23-ORD-265 (In re: Joseph Bilyk/Richmond Police Department)
Summary: The Richmond Police Department did not violate the Open Records Act when it denied inspection of intelligence and investigative reports related to its investigation of a pending criminal case as authorized under KRS 17.150(2), or when it denied inspection of records concerning alleged sexual abuse of a juvenile victim under KRS 61.878(1)(a). However, the Department failed to meet its burden to sustain its decision to withhold the entire incident report rather than providing a redacted version, as required under KRS 61.878(4).
2. 23-OMD-266 (In re: The Sturgis News/Sturgis City Council)
Summary: The Sturgis City Council violated the Open Meetings Act when it failed to issue a written response to a complaint within three business days. The Council also violated the Act when it failed to send notice of a special meeting to a media organization that had filed a written request to receive such notices under KRS 61.823(4).
3. 23-OMD-267 (In re: Melissa Goolman/Estill County Fiscal Court)
Summary: The Estill County Fiscal Court did not hold a secret meeting in violation of the Open Meetings Act. Although a quorum of the Fiscal Court was present at the Estill County Road Department’s building, the members of the Fiscal Court did not discuss “public business” or take any action.
4. 23-ORD-268 (In re: Kenneth Tracy/Franklin County Sheriff’s Office)
Summary: The Franklin County Sheriff’s Office violated the Open Records Act when it failed to issue a response to a request to inspect records within five business days of receiving it.
5. 23-ORD-269 (In re: David Webster/Christian County Board of Education)
Summary: The Christian County Board of Education violated the Open Records Act when it failed to notify the requester that records did not exist.
6. 23-ORD-270 (In re: Eric Lloyd Hermansen/Department of Corrections)
Summary: The Department of Corrections did not violate the Open Records Act when it denied a request for a record that does not contain a specific reference to the requesting inmate.
7. 23-ORD-271 (In re: Saeid Shafizadeh/Jefferson County Property Valuation Administrator)
Summary: The Jefferson County Property Valuation Administrator violated the Open Records Act when it denied a request to inspect records without citing an exception authorizing its denial. The PVA also violated the Act when it failed to notify the requester it was not the proper agency for portions of the request and provide the contact information of the correct agency.
8. 23-ORD-272 (In re: Kyle Thompson/Little Sandy Correctional Complex)
Summary: The Little Sandy Correctional Complex violated the Open Records Act when it denied an inmate’s request to inspect records without citing an exception authorizing its denial. However, the Complex did not violate the Act by refusing to email records to the records custodian of the correctional facility where the requester is currently incarcerated for his in-person inspection. The requester may resubmit his request by requesting to receive copies of the records by mail and prepaying the applicable fees.