The Kentucky Attorney General issued the following open records decisions last week:
1) 23-ORD-316 (In re: Carlos Harris/Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex)
Summary: The Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex violated the Open Records Act when it did not explain that a portion of the Appellant’s request was denied or explain why that portion was denied. The Complex did not violate the act when it did not provide records that it does not possess.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-316.pdf
2) 23-ORD-317 (In re: Lindzey Lewis/Morgan County Fiscal Court)
Summary: The Morgan County Fiscal Court violated the Open Records Act when it redacted portions of records without citing any exception authorizing the redactions or explaining how any such exception applied. The Office cannot resolve the factual dispute between the parties about whether all responsive records have been provided.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-317.pdf
3) 23-ORD-318 (In re: Glenn D. Odom/Cabinet for Health and Family Services)
Summary: The Office cannot find that the Cabinet for Health and Family Services violated the Open Records Act when it did not respond to a request because the Office cannot resolve the factual dispute between the parties as to whether the Cabinet received the request.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-318.pdf
4) 23-ORD-319 (In re: Glenn D. Odom/Kentucky State Penitentiary)
Summary: The Office cannot find that the Kentucky State Penitentiary violated the Open Records Act because it cannot resolve the factual dispute between the parties about whether the requester received the agency’s responses to his requests or whether the requested records exist.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-319.pdf
5) 23-ORD-320 (In re: Courtney Graham/Kentucky Board of Cosmetology)
Summary: The Kentucky Board of Cosmetology failed to give a detailed explanation of the cause for delay when it cited KRS 61.872(5) in responding to a request for records. However, the Board did not subvert the intent of the Open Records Act within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4) when it established on appeal that the additional delay in producing records was warranted.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-320.pdf
6) 23-ORD-321 (In re: Vivian Miles/Cabinet for Health and Family Services)
Summary: The Cabinet for Health and Family Services violated the Open Records Act when it did not issue a timely response to a request made under the Act. However, the Office is unable to find the Cabinet violated the Act when it denied a request for records that do not exist.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-321.pdf
7) 23-ORD-322 (In re: William Aucott/Northpoint Training Center)
Summary: The Northpoint Training Center 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-322.pdf
8)23-ORD-323 (In re: John Fairley/Hopkinsville Police Department)
Summary: The Hopkinsville Police Department (“the Department”) 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-323.pdf
9) 23-ORD-324 (In re: Zachary Kirk/Winchester Police Department)
Summary: The Winchester Police Department violated the Open Records Act when it denied a request to inspect records without explanation and based on inapplicable statutes. The Department also failed to meet its burden to support withholding the records under KRS 61.878(1)(a) and (h).
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-324.pdf
