The Office of the Kentucky Attorney General issued these Opinions and Open Records/Open Meetings Decisions last week. The summaries are listed here. To read the opinions and decisions, go to the link: https://ag.ky.gov/Priorities/Government-Transparency/opinions/Pages/opi…
1. 20-ORD-062 (Franklin County)
The Commonwealth Office of Technology ("COT") is not the "official custodian" of most of the public records that Appellant requested from it. Therefore, COT did not violate the Open Records Act ("Act") by referring the requester to a different public agency in whose custody and control those records would most likely reside. KRS 61.872(4). However, COT is the "official custodian" of COT-F084 forms submitted to it, and violated the Act by failing to either produce those records or cite a statutory basis for denying inspection.
2. 20-ORD-063 (Franklin County)
Kentucky State Police ("KSP") did not violate the Open Records Act ("Act") by redacting a personal phone number from a responsive Computer Aided Dispatch ("CAD") report under KRS 61.878(1)(a).
3. 20-ORD-064 (Boyle County)
Northpoint Training Center ("NTC") did not violate the Open Records Act ("the Act") in failing to respond to a request for records. Instead, NTC met its burden of proof that it did not receive the request.
4. 20-ORD-065 (Franklin County)
The Kentucky State Police ("KSP") violated the Act in failing to timely respond to a request for records submitted under the Open Records Act ("the Act"). However, KSP did not violate the Act in denying the request.
5. 20-ORD-066 (Muhlenberg County)
Green River Correctional Complex ("Complex") violated the Open Records Act ("the Act") by initially failing to conduct a search for records and failing to notify the requester that it was not the custodian of other records.
6. 20-ORD-067 (Oldham County)
The Roederer Correctional Complex ("the Complex") did not violate the Open Records Act ("Act") by denying a request for a record that did not exist at the time of the request. The Act does not require public agencies to comply with requests to preserve public records for purposes of litigation.
7. 20-ORD-068 (Franklin County)
Department of Corrections ("DOC") did not violate the Open Records Act ("the Act") when it denied an inmate's request for a copy of an administrative regulation because the record did not contain a specific reference to him. KRS 197.025(2).
8. 20-ORD-069 (Lyon County)
Because Kentucky State Penitentiary ("the Penitentiary") cannot provide for inspection of records that do not exist, it did not violate the Open Records Act (the "Act").
