Annotations for Statute

State university’s response to inquiry by collegiate athletic association into rules violation was not exempt from disclosure under Open Records Act exemption for public records. It is clear that the university is a “public agency” and the entire response submitted by the university to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) constitutes a public record. Where the university spent over $400,000.00 for the response and the public has a legitimate interest in its contents, the response is not exempt. Furthermore, the contents of the response are a matter of public interest and release would not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. University of Kentucky v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co., 830 S.W.2d 373, 1992 Ky. LEXIS 55 (Ky. 1992).

The Governor’s administration was properly ordered to release service description statements on attorney billing records reflecting the general nature of legal services rendered by nongovernmental lawyers retained in connection with an investigation of hiring practices. Such statements were not protected by the attorney-client privilege of KRE 503, and the trial court’s solution of allowing the administration to submit descriptions it believed to be privileged for in camera  review balanced the administration’s interest in the confidentiality of privileged materials and the public interest in disclosure. Commonwealth v. Scorsone, 2008 Ky. App. LEXIS 18 (Ky. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2008), op. withdrawn, sub. op., 251 S.W.3d 328, 2008 Ky. App. LEXIS 40 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).

The Kentucky State Penitentiary, and other Kentucky facilities, are required to comply with open records requests. Blair v. Hendricks, 30 S.W.3d 802, 2000 Ky. App. LEXIS 69 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000), overruled in part, Lang v. Sapp, 71 S.W.3d 133, 2002 Ky. App. LEXIS 452 (Ky. Ct. App. 2002).

The Kentucky State University Foundation is a “public agency” as defined in this section and therefore subject to the Open Records law. An interpretation of this section which does not include the Foundation as a public agency is clearly inconsistent with the natural and harmonious reading of this section considering the overall purpose of the Kentucky Open Records law. The obvious purpose of the Open Records law is to make available for public inspection all records in the custody of public agencies by whatever label they have at the moment. The phrase “or agency thereof” in subsection (1) prior to the 1992 amendment is applicable to all units of government listed before it in the same subsection. It is the clear intent of the law to make public the records of all units of government by whatever title for public inspection. Frankfort Pub. Co. v. Kentucky State University Foundation, Inc., 834 S.W.2d 681, 1992 Ky. LEXIS 103 (Ky. 1992) (decision prior to 1992 amendment).

The Open Records Act neither intends nor provides that a convicted criminal should have complete access to the prosecutorial file once his conviction has been affirmed on direct appeal. Skaggs v. Redford, 844 S.W.2d 389, 1992 Ky. LEXIS 164 (Ky. 1992), overruled in part, City of Fort Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer, 406 S.W.3d 842, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 375 (Ky. 2013).

The confidential audited financial reports of privately owned, corporate marina operators were exempt from disclosure under KRS 61.878(1)(c)(1). The Legislative Program Review and Investigation Committee could not obtain nor disclose such records under the Open Records Act, but could obtain access to them for its use in evaluation pursuant to KRS 6.910 without disclosure to the public. Marina Management Servs. v. Cabinet for Tourism, Dep't of Parks, 906 S.W.2d 318, 1995 Ky. LEXIS 62 (Ky. 1995).

The custody and control of the records generated by the courts in the course of their work are inseparable from the judicial function itself, and are not subject to statutory regulation. Ex parte Farley, 570 S.W.2d 617, 1978 Ky. LEXIS 390 (Ky. 1978).

The materials compiled for purposes of reviewing death sentences will be open to the public and, perforce, to all who may be interested, as soon as the Supreme Court has the occasion and opportunity to examine and consider them, and until then they are in the same category as any other source of knowledge or information, apart from the record of proceedings relating to an individual appellant, from which the members of the court may properly seek assistance or inspiration in the formulation of their judgments. Ex parte Farley, 570 S.W.2d 617, 1978 Ky. LEXIS 390 (Ky. 1978).

The role of the Commissioner of the Department of Insurance as “rehabilitator” is legally separate from his official role as the regulator of the state’s insurance department, and although he is appointed by and responsible to the court, the commissioner is not a “governing body” as contemplated in subsection (1)(i) of this section nor does he qualify as a “public agency” as described in subsection (1)(a) of this section. Kentucky Cent. Life Ins. Co. by & Through Stephens v. Park Broadcasting, 913 S.W.2d 330, 1996 Ky. App. LEXIS 6 (Ky. Ct. App. 1996).

Unpublished decision: Under the pre-amendment version of Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.870(1)(h), the management group, which provided management and operational services for the county public waterworks district and other services for a local city, and received funds from state and local authorities, qualified as a public agency.  Pike Cnty. Fiscal Court v. Util. Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 2015 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 880 (Ky. Ct. App. June 12, 2015), aff'd, 531 S.W.3d 3, 2017 Ky. LEXIS 441 (Ky. 2017).