Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
This matter having been presented to the Attorney General in an open records appeal, and the Attorney General being sufficiently advised, we find that the Louisville Water Company improperly relied on KRS 61.878(1)(a) in denying Courier-Journal reporter James Bruggers' March 3, 2015, request for "access to and copies of any and all settlement agreements or separation agreements and/or other documents that might not be called separation or settlement agreements but would contain financial provisions and/or obligations related to the termination/resignation of a [named employee]." The Attorney General addressed a similar issue in 12-ORD-201 and concluded that Eastern Kentucky University improperly denied the Lexington Herald-Leader's request for, inter alia , the agreement and release between the University and the former director of its arts center. A copy of that open records decision is attached and its reasoning adopted in full. See also, 97-ORD-66 (citing
Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government v. Lexington Herald-Leader Co., 941 S.W.2d 469, 473 (Ky. 1997) for the proposition that "[i]n balancing the sacrosanct right of an individual to privacy against legitimate public concerns and the right of the public to inquire into the workings of government, we find that a settlement . . . is a matter of legitimate public concern which the public is entitled to scrutinize").
The Louisville Water Company identifies no information in the disputed separation or settlement agreement "about which the public would have little or no legitimate interest but [which] would be likely to cause [the named employee] serious personal embarrassment or humiliation."
Central Kentucky News-Journal v. George, 306 S.W.3d 41, 47 (Ky. 2010) citing Lexington Herald-Leader at 472. Instead, it recites the language of the exception, asserting that "[a]ny such records are exempt under KRS 61.878(1)(a) because they contain information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Based on the referenced legal authorities, and the paucity of proof supporting its claim, we find that the Louisville Water Company violated the Open Records Act in denying Mr. Bruggers' request.
Either party may appeal this decision by initiating 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.