23-ORD-318
December 5, 2023
In re: Glenn D. Odom/Cabinet for Health and Family Services
Summary: The Office cannot find that the Cabinet for Health and
Family Services (“the Cabinet”) violated the Open Records Act (“the
Act”) when it did not respond to a request because the Office cannot
resolve the factual dispute between the parties as to whether the
Cabinet received the request.
Open Records Decision
Inmate Glenn D. Odom (“Appellant”) claims that, on October 10, 2023, he
submitted a request to the Cabinet for records related to his “competency evaluation”
performed on a specific date. On October 30, 2023, having received no response from
the Cabinet, the Appellant initiated this appeal.
Upon receiving a request for records under the Act, a public agency “shall
determine within five (5) [business] days . . . after the receipt of any such request
whether to comply with the request and shall notify in writing the person making the
request, within the five (5) day period, of its decision.” KRS 61.880(1) (emphasis
added). Here, the Appellant claims he submitted a request to the Cabinet on October
10, 2023, but the Cabinet did not respond to his request. On appeal, the Cabinet
states it did not respond to the Appellant’s request because it did not receive it.1 The
1
The Cabinet claims it received a similar, but different, request from the Appellant on October 25,
2023. That request was dated October 11, 2023. The Cabinet provided the Office a copy of the October
11 request and its response. Here, the Appellant has alleged the Cabinet failed to respond to a request
he submitted on October 10, 2023. He has not challenged the Cabinet’s response to the request he
submitted on October 11, 2023. Accordingly, review of the Cabinet’s response to the Appellant’s
October 11 request is not properly before the Office. See KRS 61.880(2)(a) (requiring a person whoOffice has previously found that it is unable to resolve factual disputes, such as
whether an agency received a request for records. See, e.g., 23-ORD-303; 23-ORD-005;
22-ORD-216; 22-ORD-148; 22-ORD-125; 22-ORD-100; 22-ORD-051; 21-ORD-163.
Similarly, here, the Office is unable to resolve the factual dispute between the parties
or find that the Cabinet violated the Act when it did not respond to a request it claims
not to have received.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an 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
#498
Distributed to:
Glenn D. Odom #219489
Elyssa S. Morris
Peyton Sands
disputes an agency’s denial of a request to provide both a copy of the request and the agency’s
response).