The Kentucky Attorney General issued the following open records decisions last week:
1) 23-ORD-325 (In re: Martha Coburn/Covington Police Department)
Summary: The Office cannot find that the Covington Police Department violated the Open Records Act when it attempted to advise requesters seeking public records to submit requests to another employee during the official records custodian’s absence.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-325.pdf
2) 23-ORD-326 (In re: Kim Striegel/Anchorage Independent School District)
Summary: The Anchorage Independent School District did not violate the Open Records Act when it withheld records that were preliminary drafts, notes, or correspondence with private individuals under KRS 61.878(1)(i), or preliminary communications concerning the planning of a meeting under KRS 61.878(1)(j) that had not been adopted as the basis of final action. However, the District subverted the intent of the Act, within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4), by imposing excessive fees for copies of electronic records. The District did not violate the Act when it could not provide records that did not yet exist.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-326.pdf
3) 23-ORD-327 (In re: Kevin Adams/Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex)
Summary: The Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex did not violate the Open Records Act when it did not fulfill a request for information that failed to describe public records to be inspected.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-327.pdf
4) 23-ORD-328 (In re: Ryan Van Velzer/Louisville Metro Police Department)
Summary: The Louisville Metro Police Department subverted the intent of the Open Records Act, within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4), when it delayed access to requested records for six months without proper justification.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-328.pdf
5) 23-ORD-329 (In re: Mikayla D. Ford/Board of Cosmetology)
Summary: The Board of Cosmetology subverted the Open Records Act within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4) when it failed to adequately explain why a delay of 55 days is necessary to provide responsive records.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-329.pdf
6) 23-ORD-330 (In re: Mikayla D. Ford/Kentucky Board of Cosmetology)
Summary: The Kentucky Board of Cosmetology did not violate the Open Records Act when it did not provide records that either do not exist or were not “precisely describe[d]” in the request.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-330.pdf
7) 23-ORD-331 (In re: Ashton McHatton/Henderson Circuit Court Clerk)
Summary: The Open Records Act does not apply to records of the Henderson Circuit Court Clerk.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-331.pdf
8) 23-ORD-332 (In re: Elbert Long/Kentucky Parole Board)
Summary: The Kentucky Parole Board did not violate the Open Records Act when it did not provide records that do not exist.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-332.pdf
9) 23-ORD-333 (In re: Mike Doyle/Louisville Metro Government)
Summary: Louisville Metro Government subverted the intent of the Open Records Act, within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4), by delaying its final response beyond the five-day period under KRS 61.880(1) without invoking KRS 61.872(5), explaining the cause for delay, or providing the earliest date when the records would be available.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-333.pdf
10) 23-ORD-334 (In re: Mike Doyle/Louisville Metro Government)
Summary: Louisville Metro Government subverted the intent of the Open Records Act, within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4), by delaying its final response beyond the five-day period under KRS 61.880(1) without invoking KRS 61.872(5), explaining the cause for delay, or giving the earliest date when records would be available.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-334.pdf
