The Kentucky Attorney General issued the following open records decisions last week:
1. 22-ORD-124 (In re: Randall Knuckles/Knox County Fiscal Court)
Summary: This Office cannot find that the Knox County Fiscal Court violated the Open Records Act when it failed to respond within five business days to a request it claims it did not receive.
https://ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2022/22-ORD-124.pdf
2. 22-ORD-125 (In re: Ben Richard/Cabinet for Health and Family Services)
Summary: The Cabinet for Health and Family Services did not violate the Open Records Act when it denied a request for a record that does not exist within its possession.
https://ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2022/22-ORD-125.pdf
3. 22-ORD-126 (In re: Lawrence Trageser/Jeffersontown Fire Protection District)
Summary: The Jeffersontown Fire Protection District was not required under the Open Records Act to provide records in a specified electronic format when they did not exist in that format. The District subverted the intent of the Act, within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4), when it limited the inspection of public records to a 90-minute period at a facility that was not “suitable” under KRS 61.872(1).
https://ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2022/22-ORD-126.pdf
4. 22-ORD-127 (In re: Jacta E. Alea/Kentucky State Police)
Summary: The Kentucky State Police did not violate the Open Records Act when it relied on KRS 17.150(2) to deny inspection of audio and video recordings and photographs related to its investigations of pending criminal cases.
https://ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2022/22-ORD-127.pdf
5. 22-ORD-128 (In re: WCPO-TV/Kentucky CASA Network, Inc.)
Summary: The Open Records Act does not apply to records of Kentucky CASA Network, Inc.
https://ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2022/22-ORD-128.pdf
6. 22-ORD-129 (In re: David Rymer/Boyd County Fiscal Court)
Summary: The Boyd County Fiscal Court subverted the intent of Open Records Act, within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4), when it imposed an excessive fee for copies of records.
https://ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2022/22-ORD-129.pdf