Opinion
Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; Michelle D. Harrison, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
At issue in this appeal is whether the actions of the Office of the Attorney General relative to the request of Barbara Schwarz for any records relating to her, Mark C. Rathbun, Mark de Rothschild, Scientology, the Church of Scientology or its deceased founder, L. Ron Hubbard, or former President Dwight David Eisenhower, violated the Kentucky Open Records Act. On May 17, 2004, Ms. Schwarz appealed 1 from comparable determinations by the six public agencies, including the OAG, to which she submitted identical requests. Having reviewed the record in its entirety and considered the arguments of both parties, we conclude that 04-ORD-090, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is controlling. 2 Because the OAG does not possess any records that are responsive to Ms. Schwarz's request aside from those which have already been disclosed and affirmatively indicated as much to her in a timely response, the OAG has fulfilled its obligation under the Open Records Act.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 On appeal, the agency indicates that it "respectfully declined to entertain Ms. Schwarz's appeal[,]" presumably referring to Ms. Schwarz's initial attempt to file an appeal which was procedurally deficient for the reasons outlined in 04-ORD-090. To clarify, Ms. Schwarz subsequently complied with KRS 61.880(1) and KRS 61.872(2) thereby perfecting her appeal as indicated in that decision.
2 In its supplemental response, the agency argues that notes and e-mails generated internally "are preliminary in nature and thus exempt from disclosure pursuant to KRS 61.878(l)(i)." Because our resolution of the issues raised in 04-ORD-090 is determinative, however, we do not reach the merits of this secondary argument.