Proof positive that records relating to allegations of public employee misconduct — both substantiated and unsubstantiated — must be accessible to the public.

Why?

Because the results of this independent investigation, itself a public record, confirm that a public employee — indeed multiple public employees — engaged in a pattern of illegal conduct within a correctional facility with absolutely no repercussions.

It appears, in fact, that employees against whom substantiated allegations were made were promoted rather than disciplined.

Unless the public has access to records relating to both substantiated and unsubstantiated allegations generated in agency investigations of employee misconduct, the public can not assess whether the agency investigation was thorough, that the factual findings supported the conclusions, and that discipline was fairly and evenhandedly imposed.

In this case, an internal investigation conducted by staff at Little Sandy Correctional Complex substantiated no employee misconduct. Under the reasoning that only records relating to substantiated allegations should be disclosed, the public would not be entitled to review the investigative file.

Fortunately, this is not how the open records law is construed.

The law focuses on the agency's response to the allegations of public employee misconduct as much as it focuses on the allegations themselves or the identity of the employee.

As the Kentucky Court of Appeals declared today in The Kentucky Kernel v University of Kentucky, "the public has an interest in the investigatory methods used by its public agencies" and the right to know that its agencies complied with state and federal law in conducting those investigations.

The fact that the Kentucky Personnel Board disclosed the results of the independent investigation into Little Sandy, rather than hiding the truth behind legally unsupportable arguments, spared it, the courts ,and the taxpayers from needless protracted -- and expensive -- litigation.