The Kentucky Attorney General issued the following open records decisions last week:
1. 22-ORD-179 (In re: Jamie Weddington/City of Vanceburg)
Summary: The City of Vanceburg violated the Open Records Act when it failed to respond to a request for records within five business days. The City did not violate the Act when it denied a request for occupational tax information that is confidential under KRS 131.190(1).
2. 22-ORD-180 (In re: Teri Erchak/Marion County School Board)
Summary: The Marion County School Board did not violate the Open Records Act when it withheld records that are exempt under the attorney-client privilege, and when it provided all responsive records that exist within its possession. All issues related to records the Board has already provided to the Appellant have been rendered moot under 40 KAR 1:030 § 6.
3. 22-ORD-181 (In re: Matthew Williams/Warren County Regional Jail)
Summary: The Warren County Regional Jail did not violate the Open Records Act when it denied a request for a record that does not exist within its possession.
4. 22-ORD-182 (In re: Charlotte Flanary/Office of the Treasurer)
Summary: The Office of the Treasurer violated the Open Records Act when it denied a request as unreasonably burdensome without providing clear and convincing evidence in support of its denial.
5. 22-ORD-183 (In re: Lisa Marie Scott/Department of Financial Institutions)
Summary: The Department of Financial Institutions did not violate the Open Records Act when it relied on KRS 286.6-185(4) to deny a request for its correspondence closing an investigation into a credit union.
6. 22-ORD-184 (In re: Charlotte Flanary/Office of the Secretary of State)
Summary: The Office of the Secretary of State did not violate the Open Records Act when it conducted an adequate search in good faith for records responsive to a request to inspect records that did not precisely describe the records to be inspected.
7. 22-ORD-185 (In re: Kurt Wallace/Office of the Secretary of State)
Summary: The Office of the Secretary of State did not violate the Open Records Act when it could not provide records that do not exist in its possession.