23-ORD-168
July 11, 2023
In re: Christopher Wiest/Kentucky Department of Education
Summary: The Kentucky Department of Education (“the Department”)
violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it denied a request for
emails or other communications related to certain social media posts
over a five-day period.
Open Records Decision
Christopher Wiest (“Appellant”) submitted to the Department a request for
“[a]ny emails, communications, or other public records, related to the Twitter or
Facebook posts by the [Department], between June 1, 2023 [and the date of the
request],1 related to the LGBTQI+ community, including any emails, communication,
or other documents, related to the restriction of the @KyDeptofED twitter account to
(i) permit comments only by those followed or mentioned by [the Department]; and
(ii) to delete or hide comments.”2 The Department denied the request because it
lacked “specificity” and did not allow the Department “to identify and locate records
responsive to” the Appellant’s request. This appeal followed.
The Department maintains that the Appellant submitted “a vague, blanket
request [that] did not contain enough specificity to allow the [Department] to identify
and locate specific and responsive public records.” Under the Act, a request must be
“adequate for a reasonable person to ascertain [its] nature and scope.”
1
Because the Appellant did not include an end date for the scope of his request, the Department
concluded that the Appellant sought records between June 1, 2023, and the date of the request, June
5, 2023.
2
The Appellant also sought (1) “Any and all policies or procedures that govern the handling of
official social media accounts (Facebook or Twitter) by or of he [Department], in force from January 1,
2023, to the [date of the request], including policies for blocking or deleting comments or users” and
“any documents that reflect who in any ways controls or operates the official social media accounts.”
The Department provided records responsive to these requests.Commonwealth v. Chestnut, 255 S.W.3d 655, 661 (Ky. 2008). Under KRS 61.872(3)(b),
“[t]he public agency shall mail copies of the public records to a person . . . after he or
she precisely describes the public records which are readily available within the
public agency.” A description is precise “if it describes the records in definite, specific,
and unequivocal terms.” 98-ORD-17 (internal quotation marks omitted). This
standard may not be met when a request does not “describe records by type, origin,
county, or any identifier other than relation to a subject.” 20-ORD-017 (quoting
13-ORD-077). In particular, requests for any and all records “related to a broad and
ill-defined topic” generally fail to precisely describe the records. 22-ORD-182; see also,
e.g., 21-ORD-034 (finding a request for any and all records relating to “change of
duties,” “freedom of speech,” or “usage of signs” did not precisely describe the records);
but see Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43, 48 n.2 (Ky. 2021) (holding a
request was proper when it sought “all records detailing [the] resignation” of a specific
employee).
Here, the Department argues it cannot ascertain the nature and scope of the
Appellant’s request because the language “or other public records” is ambiguous
because it could include any possible public record in the Department’s possession. It
further claims the Appellant’s failure to identify specific employees or “program
areas” where the records may be located makes the request too vague to understand.
But in context, “other public records” clearly relates to other public records that are
similar in type to emails and communications. When read in its entirety, the
Appellant specified the types of record he sought, i.e., emails, communications, or
other similar types of public records. He narrowed those types of records to only those
related to social media posts on two websites over a five-day period, and he narrowed
still further the types of social media posts over that period to a specific topic. He
included in his description records meeting all the aforementioned criteria that also
relate to the Department allegedly blocking commentary on those same posts. Given
all these limitations on the scope of the Appellant’s request, the Office cannot
conclude that it related to a broad, ill-defined topic that would lead to an incalculable
number of potentially responsive records. See, e.g., 23-ORD-024, 23-ORD-006;
22-ORD-182. Accordingly, the Department violated the Act when it denied this
portion of the Appellant’s request.
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 within 30 days
from the date of this decision. Pursuant to 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
/Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General
#246
Distributed to:
Christopher Wiest
Todd Allen
Erin Gaines