26-ORD-058 – Tanyqua Oliver/Fayette County Public Schools

Opinion Content:

February 20, 2026

In re: Tanyqua Oliver/Fayette County Public Schools

Summary: The Fayette County Public Schools (“FCPS”) did not violate
the Open Records Act (“the Act”) in denying a request because the
requester did not comply with KRS 61.872(2) by including a statement
of the manner in which she is a “Resident of the Commonwealth” under
KRS 61.870(10)(a) – (f).

Open Records Decision

On January 16, 2026, Tanyqua Oliver (“the Appellant”) submitted a request to
the FCPS for “a record of all payments sent to Sturgill Turner and Reed for their
representation during the open meetings appeal noted as 25-OMD-020 with special
regard to the letter sent on the behalf of FCPS on 1/17/2025 by Leigh Reed.” 1 She
provided a Post Office Box in Cincinnati, Ohio, as her mailing address. In a timely
response under KRS 61.880(1), FCPS stated, “Pursuant to KRS 61.872, only
Kentucky residents have the right to inspect records. Therefore, your request is
denied.” In response, the Appellant stated that she has “dual residency” and that she
“never told” the FCPS that she was not a resident. She then initiated this appeal.

On appeal, the Appellant states she “never told FCPS” that she was not “a
Kentucky Resident because I do have several homes in Lexington [that] I can bounce
around to at anytime I choose while I build [a] home in another state[,] and I appeal
their decision.” The Appellant further noted, “Lexington Ky will forever be my home[,]

1 The Appellant subsequently amended her January 16 request by e-mail dated January 17, noting
she was incorrect regarding the identity of the author of the letter sent on behalf of FCPS. She also
requested that FCPS update her request “accordingly as I realize that it was the following individuals
that signed the letter for Sturgill Turner Barker & Maloney PLLC dated 1/17/2025 on the behalf of
FCPS for Open Meetings Appeal 25-OMD-020:
Joshua M. Salsburey
Carmine G. Iaccarino.”
In the portion of her January 17 email directed to the Office, the Appellant further stated, “I’m running
for Congress in Ohio.”

and I didn’t see any [Kentucky] statute that required me to expose any temporary
residential address on a request. The address in my signature is obviously not a
residence, it is a PO Box.” Quoting KRS 61.872(2)(a), FCPS emphasizes on appeal
that the Appellant provided only an Ohio address in her request; she did not provide
any statement indicating that she was a resident of the Commonwealth. Rather, the
Appellant sent an email to the FCPS Records Custodian and the Office on January
17, 2026, stating, “I’m running for Congress in Ohio and yall lil [sic] demons will not
be in my way with your lies” (emphasis added). FCPS argues, “Only state residents
may run for public office of the state they live in. The [Appellant’s] statement implied
[she was a resident] of Ohio.” At no point did the Appellant provide a statement of
residency or advise that she was a resident of Kentucky. 2 Nevertheless, on February
4, FCPS supplemented its original response and provided the Appellant with 20 pages
of responsive records it possessed with redactions of “[c]onfidential communications
between district officials and legal counsel [made] to facilitate the provision of legal
services for the district” under KRE 503, incorporated into the Act by
KRS 61.878(1)(l), “because they are communications subject to attorney-client
privilege.” 3

Under KRS 61.872(2), “[t]he official custodian may require the applicant to
provide a statement in the written application of the manner in which the applicant
is a resident of the Commonwealth under KRS 61.870(10)(a) to (f).” KRS 61.872(2)(a)
(emphasis added). “Resident of the Commonwealth” is defined, in turn, as:

(a) An individual residing in the Commonwealth;
(b) A domestic business entity with a location in the Commonwealth;
(c) A foreign business entity registered with the Secretary of State;
(d) An individual that is employed and works at a location or locations
within the Commonwealth;
(e) An individual or business entity that owns real property within the
Commonwealth; [or]
(f) Any individual or business entity that has been authorized to act
on behalf of an individual or business entity defined in paragraphs
(a) to (e) of this subsection[.]

KRS 61.870(10).

2 On January 27, the Appellant supplemented her arguments on appeal, stating, “Last, I’d like to
add that I; Tanyqua Oliver am a resident per KRS 61.870(10) (a,b,d,g)” and “I am additionally a vlogger
per KRS 189.635(9)(b)[.]” The record on appeal confirms that the Appellant did not make any of these
claims in her request to FCPS.
3 Because the Appellant initiated this appeal prior to receiving any records from the FCPS, based
solely on its denial of her request pursuant to KRS 61.872(2)(a), any issues regarding the redactions
that FCPS ultimately made prior to releasing the records that she requested are not ripe for review
and will not be addressed.

Significantly, KRS 61.872(2)(a) permits a public agency to require a statement
of residency “in the written application.” 25-ORD-010 (holding that a public agency
did not violate the Act by denying a request because it lacked a statement explaining
the manner in which the requester was a “resident” under KRS 61.870(10) and noting
that a requester “does not meet his obligation under KRS 61.872(2)(a) by belatedly
providing a statement of residency”). The Office has recognized the Act permits a
public agency “to require a statement, at the time of the request, as to ‘the manner in
which the requester is a resident of the Commonwealth under KRS 61.870(10)(a) to
(f).’” 26-ORD-032 (emphasis in original). KRS 61.876(4)(e)2. This requirement is not
satisfied merely because the requester has made a statement of residency in a
previous application, regardless of whether the previous request may be part of the
same email chain. 4 See 25-ORD-116. Nor does the fact a public agency has not
previously imposed this requirement alter the relevant legal analysis. Because
KRS 61.872(2)(a) authorizes the records custodian of a public agency to require a
statement of residency from the requester, the FCPS did not violate the Act in
denying the Appellant’s request.

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/ Michelle D. Harrison
Michelle D. Harrison
Assistant Attorney General

Tanyqua Oliver, Appellant
Andria Jackson, Executive Assistant to the Superintendent, FCPS
Demetrus Liggins, Superintendent, FCPS
Alex Garcia, Associate Chief Legal Officer, FCPS

4 An email chain could conceivably span a period of many months or years, during which time an
individual’s residency status might change. See, e.g., 25-ORD-081; 25-ORD-116.