Summary: The City of Anchorage violated the open records law when it made redactions to a public record without citing an applicable exception to the Act and explaining how it applied to the record in question. The City also violated the Act when it failed to display the email address and phone number of its records custodian on its website as required by KRS 61.876(2)(b); however, the City subsequently corrected this violation.
3. 24-ORD-273 (In re: Ronnie Scott Bailey/Rowan County Detention Center)
Summary: The Rowan County Detention Center violated the Open Records Act when it failed to give a detailed explanation of the cause for delay in providing records as required under KRS 61.872(5). The Jail subverted the intent of the Act, within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4), by unreasonable delay when it failed to show the delay was necessary. However, the Jail did not violate the Act when it issued a response through an authorized agent of the official custodian of records.
4. 24-ORD-274 (In re: Jeffrey Gegler/Kentucky State Police)
Summary: The Kentucky State Police did not violate the Open Records Act when it could not provide records that were not yet within its custody or control.
5. 24-ORD-275 (In re: Yvon Utsey/Northpoint Training Center)
Summary: The Northpoint Training Center violated the Open Records Act when it failed to issue a response to a request that complied with KRS 61.880(1) within five business days of receiving that request. However, the Center did not violate the Act when it denied a request for recorded telephone calls that, if released, would pose a security threat under KRS 197.025(1).
6. 24-ORD-276 (In re: Michael Douglas Grant/Kentucky Transportation Cabinet)
Summary: The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet did not violate the Open Records Act when it did not grant a request to inspect records that it does not possess.
7. 24-ORD-277 (In re: Demetrious Brown/Kentucky Department of Corrections)
Summary: The Kentucky Department of Corrections did not violate the Open Records Act when it denied a request for records that do not contain a specific reference to the inmate requestor.
8. 24-ORD-278 (In re: Kurt Wallace/Department of Public Advocacy)
Summary: The Department of Public Advocacy did not violate the Open Records Act when it denied a request seeking information without describing any public records to be inspected.
Amye Bensenhaver is a retired assistant attorney general who, for twenty-five years, specialized in Kentucky’s open records and meetings laws. She is the co-founder of the Kentucky Open Government Coalition.
Sun, December 29, 2024
Commentary
Amye Bensenhaver
Kentucky Open Government Coalition
The Kentucky Attorney General issued the following open records decisions last week:
1. 24-ORD-271 (In re: The Cincinnati Enquirer/City of Newport)
Summary: The City of Newport did not violate the Open Records Act when it did not produce records it does not possess.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2024-OROM/2024/24-ORD-271.pdf
2. 24-ORD-272 (In re: Alex Rib/City of Anchorage)
Summary: The City of Anchorage violated the open records law when it made redactions to a public record without citing an applicable exception to the Act and explaining how it applied to the record in question. The City also violated the Act when it failed to display the email address and phone number of its records custodian on its website as required by KRS 61.876(2)(b); however, the City subsequently corrected this violation.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2024-OROM/2024/24-ORD-272.pdf
3. 24-ORD-273 (In re: Ronnie Scott Bailey/Rowan County Detention Center)
Summary: The Rowan County Detention Center violated the Open Records Act when it failed to give a detailed explanation of the cause for delay in providing records as required under KRS 61.872(5). The Jail subverted the intent of the Act, within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4), by unreasonable delay when it failed to show the delay was necessary. However, the Jail did not violate the Act when it issued a response through an authorized agent of the official custodian of records.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2024-OROM/2024/24-ORD-273.pdf
4. 24-ORD-274 (In re: Jeffrey Gegler/Kentucky State Police)
Summary: The Kentucky State Police
did not violate the Open Records Act when it could not provide records that were not yet within its custody or control.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2024-OROM/2024/24-ORD-274.pdf
5. 24-ORD-275
(In re: Yvon Utsey/Northpoint Training Center)
Summary: The Northpoint Training Center violated the Open Records Act when it failed to issue a response to a request that complied with KRS 61.880(1) within five business days of receiving that request. However, the Center did not violate the Act when it denied a request for recorded telephone calls that, if released, would pose a security threat under KRS 197.025(1).
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2024-OROM/2024/24-ORD-275.pdf
6. 24-ORD-276 (In re: Michael Douglas Grant/Kentucky Transportation Cabinet)
Summary: The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet did not violate the Open Records Act when it did not grant a request to inspect records that it does not possess.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2024-OROM/2024/24-ORD-276.pdf
7. 24-ORD-277 (In re: Demetrious Brown/Kentucky Department of Corrections)
Summary: The Kentucky Department of Corrections did not violate the Open Records Act when it denied a request for records that do not contain a specific reference to the inmate requestor.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2024-OROM/2024/24-ORD-277.pdf
8. 24-ORD-278
(In re: Kurt Wallace/Department of Public Advocacy)
Summary: The Department of Public Advocacy did not violate the Open Records Act when it denied a request seeking information without describing any public records to be inspected.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2024-OROM/2024/24-ORD-278.pdf
©2024 Kentucky Open Government Coalition, Inc. Unless otherwise noted, body of blog posts may be republished and used under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license, CC-BY-SA 4.0.
https://kyopengov.org/blog/kentucky-attorney-generals-open-records-decisions-issued-last-week-50
Amye Bensenhaver
Amye Bensenhaver is a retired assistant attorney general who, for twenty-five years, specialized in Kentucky’s open records and meetings laws. She is the co-founder of the Kentucky Open Government Coalition.
Recommended Posts
Kentucky’s Auditor Knows the Rules—But Do They Enforce Them?
Fri, January 10, 2025
Day 1: 2025 Regular Session of the Kentucky General Assembly
Tue, January 7, 2025
Kentucky Attorney General’s open records and open meetings decisions issued last week
Tue, January 7, 2025