23-ORD-110
May 22, 2023
In re: William Michael Fields, Jr./City of Cynthiana
Summary: This Office cannot find that the City of Cynthiana (the
“City”) violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it did not respond
to requests it did not receive.
Open Records Decision
Inmate William Michael Fields Jr. (“Appellant”) claims that on August 29,
2022, he submitted the first of four requests to the City to inspect records “pertaining
to the investigation” involving him and his subsequent arrest. Although it is not clear
from this record when the City responded to that request, the Appellant claims he
received from the City only “one single screenshot of a text message between an
alleged victim and the detective who lead [sic] the investigation.”
The Appellant also claims to have submitted two additional requests on
December 27, 2022. Those requests sought the “personnel files” of an identified officer
and any text messages exchanged between the alleged victim and that same officer.
However, he did not sign either of those requests.1 The Appellant further claims he
sent a fourth request to the City on January 25, 2023, but he did not include a copy
of that request on appeal. On March 7, 2023, the Appellant initiated this appeal and
1
The Office also notes the Appellant is currently incarcerated in South Carolina, and therefore, it
is not clear whether he qualifies as a “resident of the Commonwealth” under KRS 61.870(10). Only
“residents of the Commonwealth” have a statutory right to inspect public records. See KRS 61.872.
The Appellant claims to have submitted his requests through a power of attorney, but only his first
request is signed by his attorney-in-fact. His remaining requests were not signed by him or his
attorney-in-fact, and it is not clear whether his attorney-in-fact qualifies as a “resident of the
Commonwealth” under KRS 61.870(10).claimed the City’s response to the August 29, 2022 request was incomplete, and that
it failed to respond to the three others.
Under KRS 61.880(2)(a), “[i]f a complaining party wishes the Attorney General
to review a public agency’s denial of a request to inspect a public record, the
complaining party shall forward to the Attorney General a copy of the written request
and a copy of the written response denying inspection.” This Office’s review of an
agency’s response to an open records request is an administrative proceeding under
KRS 61.880(2). “In statutory proceedings, the words of the statute are paramount.”
Kenton Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment v. Meitzen, 607 S.W.3d 586, 594 (Ky. 2020). These
statutory proceedings are matters of “legislative grace,” and the person seeking to
initiate such a proceeding must “strictly comply” with the statutes that enable the
proceeding. See id. at 593. Here, neither party disputes that the City issued a
response with one page of responsive records sometime between September 4, 2022
and December 27, 2022.2 Furthermore, the Appellant claims he submitted a written
request on January 25, 2023, to the City, but he did not provide a copy of that request
to this Office. Thus, the Office lacks jurisdiction to consider the Appellant’s appeal
related to his August 29, 2022, and January 25, 2023, requests.3
Regarding the two requests he allegedly sent on December 27, 2022, the Office
cannot find that the City failed to timely respond to them. Under the Act, a public
agency has five business days after receipt of a request to inspect records to fulfill it,
2
Neither the Appellant nor the City have provided a copy of the City’s response to the August 29,
2022 request. It is not clear from this record if the City issued a written response, or if it only sent to
the Appellant a copy of the text message without any further explanation. That is important, because
under KRS 61.880(2)(a) a person seeking this Office’s review must provide a copy of his original request
and the agency’s “written response denying inspection” of the requested record. If the City failed to
issue a written response to the Appellant’s request, and instead sent to him only a copy of the text
message, then the Appellant would have provided all necessary documents to perfect his appeal under
KRS 61.880(2)(a). But even if the Appellant did provide all documents necessary under
KRS 61.880(2)(a), it is clear from his and the City’s statements on appeal that the City provided the
Appellant whatever it provided him more than 20 days before the Appellant initiated this appeal.
Indeed, the Appellant admits he received the copy of the text message on November 25, 2023, three
months before initiating this appeal. Under KRS 197.025(3), “all persons confined in a penal facility
shall challenge any denial of an open record with the Attorney General by mailing or otherwise sending
the appropriate documents to the Attorney General within twenty (20) days of the denial.” Accordingly,
to the extent the Appellant has provided all necessary documents with respect to his first request, he
has failed to do so within the 20-day period required under KRS 197.025(3). As such, the Office lacks
jurisdiction to consider the City’s response to his first request.
3
The City states it has provided a flash drive containing “the remaining records requested” to both
of his August 29, 2023 requests and the Appellant did not dispute this. Accordingly, any remaining
dispute regarding his first request submitted on August 29, 2022, is moot. See 40 KAR 1:030 § 6 (“If
the requested documents are made available to the complaining party after a complaint is made, the
Attorney General shall decline to issue a decision in the matter”).or deny it and explain why. KRS 61.880(1). Here, the Appellant claims to have never
received responses to the two December 27 requests. On appeal, the City states it did
not respond to those requests because it did not receive them until it received the
notice of appeal from this Office. This Office has consistently found that it is unable
to resolve factual disputes, such as whether a public agency received a request for
records. See, e.g., 22-ORD-148; 22-ORD-125; 22-ORD-100; 22-ORD-051; 21-ORD-163.
Thus, this Office cannot resolve the factual dispute of whether the City received these
requests, or find that the City violated the Act when it did not respond to requests it
claims it did not receive.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the
appropriate circuit court under KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days from
the date of this decision. Under KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General shall be notified
of any action in circuit court, but shall not be named as a party in that action or in
any subsequent proceedings. The Attorney General will accept notice of the complaint
emailed to OAGAppeals@ky.gov.
Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
s/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General
#118
Distributed to:
William Michael Fields, Jr. #22871-032
Jamie Hutchison
John Lair
James D. Smith