UPDATE: The full text of Senate Bill 48 with House Floor Amendment 3 is now posted on the LRC website.
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/21rs/sb48.html#HFA3
The amendment is not as narrowly drawn as its sponsor, Rep. John Blanton, indicated late last night as SB 48 with HFA careened toward passage.
All references to criminal/civil liability for dissemination of personally identifiable information have been removed — apparently in response to objections raised by the Kentucky Press Association and The Courier Journal.
But the term "personally identifiable information" is much more broadly defined than Blanton indicated last night. In addition to home address and license plate Information, it includes biometric, health, or medical data, or insurance information; birth and marriage records; date of birth; financial account number or credit or debit card number; property tax or property ownership records;
home, personal mobile, or direct personal telephone number to the
individual (excluding records made in the course of performing an official duty regardless of the nature of the device used); identification of any children of the individual under the age of 18; personal email address (excluding any record made in the course of performing an official duty regardless of the nature of the device used); school, day care, or employment locations or assignments; and, of course, Social Security number.
Most, if not all, of this information currently enjoys protection under KRS 61.878(1)(a), the privacy exception to the open records law, except to the extent the information has a direct bearing on the public official's qualifications for office or may disclose an officer's neglect of public duty (as, for example, documented in GPS data).
Debate of the HFA eclipsed any real debate of SB 48 which, as noted, creates a new exception to the open records law.
SB 48 is difficult to reconcile with the floor amendment relative to coverage (public officer is more broadly defined in SB 48) and content (personally identifiable information is much more broadly defined in HFA 3âcontrary to Blanton's assertions late last night).
The new open records exception for "address and location" in SB 48 is ambiguous. If limited to home address, why not say home address? Does it extend to work address. What is meant by location? Does this mean the public is no longer entitled to records confirming an officer whereabouts when allegations of neglect of duty are raised?
SB 48 with HFA 3 leaves too many unanswered questions to merit passage without additional *public* discussion—which is precisely why it will probably pass in the Senate today without *public* discussion.
*********************************
By a vote of 67-24, the House of Representatives passed SB 48 with House Floor Amendment 3 in a floor debate that began at 10:54 pm.
SB 48, sponsored by Sen. Danny Carroll, creates a new exception to the open records law for "address and location" of judges, prosecutors, and police officers. it is a dramatically scaled back version of a bill first introduced by Carroll in 2019.
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/21rs/sb48.html
Floor Amendment 3, sponsored by Rep. John Blanton, was filed today. Described as a lengthy bill by some lawmakers, its actual contents remain a mystery inasmuch as it has not — as of 12:00 am — been posted on the LRC website.
It's origins lie in HB 141, prefiled by Blanton and withdrawn early in the session, as well as its successor, HB 520. Its aim, as Blanton describes it, it to shield certain public officials from threats to their safety and well-being by erecting additional barriers to disclosure of personally identifiable information.
Based on his abbreviated and disjointed summary of Floor Amendment 3 in the waning hours of March 29, Blanton has apparently removed all of the offending provisions — relating to potential civil and criminal liability for dissemination of personally identifiable information — to which the Kentucky Press Association and Courier Journal objected.
He has also — again apparently — substantially narrowed the definition of personally identifiable information to home address and license plate number. Additionally, he has —once again, apparently — reduced the number of public officials to which the amendment extends protection to judges, prosecutors, police officers, circuit court clerks, and public defenders — along with their families.
Blanton is adamant that the amendment does not affect the public's right of access to records relating to the job performance of the named officials. He also emphasizes that the burden rests with the individual official to submit a written request for confidential treatment to each agency in possession of his/her personally identifiable information.
Blanton did not indicate whether earlier requirements that agencies scrub their digitized records of personally identifiable information remain in the floor amendment.
Adding to the confusion, SB 48 does not contain an emergency clause, but House Floor Amendment 3 — if it mirrors Blanton's first attempted amendment to SB 48 — does contain an emergency clause.
Over loud protests from some representatives, Blanton's publicly "sight unseen" House Floor Amendment passed by a voice vote. Within a few minutes, Senate Bill 48 — to which it was attached — passed by a margin of 43 votes, almost as an afterthought.
SB 48 must return to the Senate tomorrow for approval of the floor amendment. Assuming it survives in the Senate, and is sent to the Governor for signature, the Governor can veto it without the possibility of his veto being overridden.
With less than 24 hours remaining in this legislative session, it's too early to tell what the fate of SB 48 will be. If it passes, it will create a third new exception to the open records law in 2021, joining public advocate litigation files (HB 312) and photos/video depicting a person's death, killing, sexual assault or rape (HB 273).
