A second bill aimed at creating new restrictions on access to information maintained in public records has been pre-filed.

21RS BR 960, sponsored by Sen. Danny Carroll (R-Paducah), would create a new exception to the open records law for "[p]ersonally identifiable information in records that would reveal the *address or location* of a public officer if that officer has notified the public agency responsible for those records that he or she does not want the information to be made public."

"Public officer" is broadly defined to include sworn public peace officers; public safety officers; first responders;

judges/justices; designated Cabinet for Health and Family Services employees; employees of law enforcement agencies who testify in criminal cases (including investigative analysts and lab technicians); Commonwealth's, and county attorneys, their assistants, "statewide prosecutors," and guardians ad litem; corrections officers, jailers, probation and parole officers, juvenile probation officers, and juvenile detention officers; and employees of emergency call centers.

Late last week, we reported on 21 RS BR 985, pre-filed by Rep. John Blanton (R-Salyersville). That bill, "relating to private information of public officials," declares a broad range of "personally identifiable information," including first and last name, of a judicial officer, prosecutor, or law enforcement officer exempt from the Open Records Act. It contains extensive mechanisms for criminal and civil enforcement.

https://www.facebook.com/419650175248377/posts/826829887863735/?d=n

https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/21rs/prefiled/BR985.html

In our earlier post, we noted that Blanton's bill "bears some of the earmarks of an unsuccessful bill sponsored by Sen. Danny Carroll in 2019. But that bill — which was widely criticized by open records advocates — did not go so far as to extend blanket protection to the *names* of public officials and employees, including judges, prosecutors, and police officers."

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5677184-BR821-by-Sen-Danny-Carr…

It is unclear whether Blanton and Carroll collaborated in the formulation of these proposed new exceptions. Both bills were pre-filed on December 11.

It is clear that they signal a dramatic departure from 44 years of open records law.

Compared to Blanton's Bill, Carroll's bill extends protection to substantially more "public officers," active and retired, but exempts considerably less information — specifically, the officer's address or location. Although the bill does not specify, this presumably includes the officer's public address or location as well home address.

In opinions dating back to the earliest days of the open records law, the attorney general has recognized that "[a] public employee's name, position, work station, and salary are subject to public inspection, as well as information regarding the employee's ability to discharge the responsibilities of public employment."

https://ag.ky.gov/Priorities/Government-Transparency/orom/2007/07ORD192…

"Conversely," the attorney general has affirmed agency denial of access to "a public employee's home address, social security number, medical records, marital status and other personal information unrelated to the performance of public employment."

Both Carroll's and Blanton's bills create statutory carve outs for previously public Information. Carroll's bill appears to exclude public addresses/work stations for a broad category of "public officers." Blanton's bill clearly excludes the first and last names of a narrower category of "public officials." Carroll's bill extends to active and retired public officers. Blanton's bill appears to apply to active public officials only.

Both present overwhelming logistical challenges. And both dramatically undermine the public's existing rights under the open records law by directly or indirectly impacting the public's ability to ascertain "whether these public servants are indeed serving the public."

https://law.justia.com/cases/kentucky/supreme-court/1992/90-sc-498-dg-1…