24-ORD-037
February 14, 2024
In re: Curtis Cornett/Letcher County Fiscal Court
Summary: The Letcher County Fiscal Court (“Fiscal Court”) did not
violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it denied two requests
seeking information without describing any public records to be
inspected.
Open Records Decision
Curtis Cornett (“Appellant”) submitted two requests to the Fiscal Court on
September 11, 2023, and November 17, 2023, respectively. The first request asked,
“What is the plan for restor[ation] of the Blackey Community Center and what is its
status?” The second request claimed a “FEMA Public Notice . . . stated that force
accounts and/or contracts for demolition and reconstruction of the Blackey
Community Center will be utilized,” and asked, “Has this happened?”, “Are you
overseeing or managing this effort?”, and “What is the current status of the Blackey
Community Center?” In timely responses to both requests, the Fiscal Court stated it
does not possess records responsive to the Appellant’s requests. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the Fiscal Court clarifies that it does not possess responsive records
because the Appellant did not request records. Rather, he requested information. The
Appellant’s first request asked the Fiscal Court whether it had a “plan” to restore a
building and, if so, to describe its “status.” His second request asked the Fiscal Court
to confirm that a specified event occurred and whether the Fiscal Court was
“overseeing” that event, and to describe “the status” of the building restoration. These
requests do not describe public records to be inspected, but rather, seek information.
See, e.g., 23-ORD-257 (requester asked for “the full names” of correctional officers on
duty at a specific time); 22-ORD-054 (requester asked “who ordered” a letter to be
written, how much the author was paid, and “why” the letter “was circulated”). The
Act does not require public agencies to answer interrogatories or fulfill requestsfor information. Rather, it only requires public agencies to produce public records for
inspection. See KRS 61.872(2)(a) (requiring a request to inspect records to include,
inter alia, a description of “the records to be inspected”); Dep’t of Revenue v. Eifler,
436 S.W.3d 530, 534 (Ky. App. 2013) (“The [Act] does not dictate that public agencies
must gather and supply information not regularly kept as part of its records.”).
Accordingly, the Fiscal Court did not violate the Act when it denied the Appellant’s
requests because they did not describe any public records to be inspected.
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.
Russell Coleman
Attorney General
/s/ Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General
#026
Distributed to:
Curtis Dean Cornett
Terry Adams
Jamie Hatton