26-ORD-014 – Ricky Ladd/Graves County School District

Opinion Content:

January 15, 2026

In re: Ricky Ladd/Graves County School District

Summary: The Graves County School District (“the District”) did not
violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it withheld a record that
was a “preliminary draft” under KRS 61.878(1)(i).

Open Records Decision

Ricky Ladd (“the Appellant”) submitted a request to the District for a copy of a
“proposed policy change,” which he asserted had been “voted on and passed” at the
November 20, 2025, meeting of the Graves County Board of Education (“the Board”).
In a timely response, the District denied the request under KRS 61.878(1)(i) on the
grounds that “the document [is] still a draft.” The District stated the record would “be
available for review following the December board meeting assuming the Board
approves the second reading.” This appeal followed.1

KRS 61.878(1)(i) exempts from disclosure “[p]reliminary drafts, notes, [and]
correspondence with private individuals, other than correspondence which is
intended to give notice of final action of a public agency.” A preliminary draft is “a
tentative version, sketch, or outline” of a final document. 05-ORD-179. Preliminary
drafts “by their very nature are rejected when a final [version] is approved.” 24-ORD-
193. Thus, a preliminary draft does not lose its preliminary status when the agency
takes final action. See, e.g., 21-ORD-089. Rather, the final document becomes
available to the public, unless it is exempt from disclosure under the Act.

1 The Appellant characterizes his appeal as pertaining to both the Open Records Act and the Open
Meetings Act. However, to initiate an appeal under the Open Meetings Act, a complaining party must
forward to the Attorney General a copy of his written complaint, submitted to the agency in accordance
with KRS 61.846(1), and a copy of the agency’s written denial, if any. See KRS 61.846(2). Because the
Appellant has not provided these documents, he has not perfected an appeal under the Open Meetings
Act. See 40 KAR 1:030 § 1 (“The Attorney General shall not consider a complaint that fails to conform
to KRS 61.846(2), requiring the submission of a written complaint to the public agency and the public
agency’s written response, if the agency provided a response[.]”).

Here, the Appellant claims “the Board took action on the first reading of [the]
policy revision” and it is therefore no longer a preliminary draft. However, the District
explains that “the policy is not adopted until it has been passed by affirmative vote
of the District at two (2) separate meetings” and that, “[u]ntil approved, the draft
document remains tentative and subject to change.” Accordingly, the first vote on the
proposed policy change did not constitute final action on the document. A draft does
not lose its preliminary status under KRS 61.878(1)(i) merely because it has “been
discussed at one or more public forums.” 15-ORD-087; see also 00-ORD-195. Because
the proposed policy change remained a preliminary draft before its final approval by
the Board, the District did not violate the Act when it denied the Appellant’s request
under KRS 61.878(1)(i).2

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 [email protected].

Russell Coleman
Attorney General

/s/ James M. Herrick
James M. Herrick
Assistant Attorney General

Mr. Ricky Ladd
Jesse E. Wright, Esq.
Ms. Tiffany Williams

2 The District argues that the record is also exempt as a “preliminary recommendation” under KRS
61.878(1)(j). Because KRS 61.878(1)(i) is dispositive of the issues on appeal, it is unnecessary to
address this alternative argument.