24-ORD-045
February 26, 2024
In re: Jason Parido/Franklin County Fiscal Court
Summary: The Office cannot find that the Franklin County Fiscal
Court (“the Fiscal Court”) violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”)
when it claims it provided all records responsive to the request.
Open Records Decision
On January 24, 2024, Jason Parido (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the
Fiscal Court for the “complete minutes” of the Finance Committee meeting held on
January 4, 2024.1 The Appellant clarified that he did not want the “Summary Report”
for that same meeting. On January 29, 2024, the Fiscal Court responded and stated
that “the committee report document” it had provided to the Appellant in response to
a previous request constituted the minutes of the meeting. The Fiscal Court further
stated no additional documents exist that are responsive to the Appellant’s request.
On January 31, 2024, the Appellant initiated this appeal, claiming the Fiscal Court
is “not providing all the information available.”
Once a public agency states affirmatively that it does not possess any additional
records, the burden shifts to the requester to present a prima facie case that
additional records do exist. See Bowling v. Lexington–Fayette Urb. Cnty. Gov’t, 172
S.W.3d 333, 341 (Ky. 2005). If the requester establishes a prima facie case that
additional records do or should exist, “then the agency may also be called upon to
prove that its search was adequate.” City of Fort Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer, 406
S.W.3d 842, 848 n.3 (Ky. 2013) (citing Bowling, 172 S.W.3d at 341). To support a
claim that the agency possesses responsive records that it did not provide, the
1
The Fiscal Court states that, on January 31, 2024, the Appellant submitted a separate request for
records related to the same “Finance Meeting,” but this request will not be addressed in this appeal
because the Appellant did not provide the Office with a copy of it or the Fiscal Court’s response to it.
See KRS 61.880(2).Appellant must produce some evidence that calls into doubt the adequacy of the
agency’s search. See, e.g., 95-ORD-96. A requester’s bare assertion that additional
records exist does not establish a prima facie case that the Agency possesses
additional responsive records. See, e.g., 23-ORD-042.
Here, the Appellant requested the “complete minutes” of the January 4, 2024,
Finance Committee meeting. Under KRS 61.835, public agencies must record
minutes “setting forth an accurate record of votes and actions [taken] at” public
meetings. Thus, the Appellant has established a prima facie case that meeting
minutes should exist. However, KRS 61.835 does not require the minutes to be
recorded in any particular format. The Fiscal Court provided a copy of the “Finance
Committee Report” for the meeting in question, which the Fiscal Court claims is the
Finance Committee’s minutes for the meeting. On appeal, the Fiscal Court maintains
its position that it does not possess any additional responsive records that have not
already been provided to the Appellant. The Appellant does not provide any proof or
cite any authority to support his assertion that the Finance Committee should have
created a record in addition to its report. As a result, the Office cannot find that the
Fiscal Court violated the Act when it timely provided the Appellant with all
responsive records it possesses.
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/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General
#038
Distributed to:
Jason Parido
Michael Mueller
Max H. Comley