26-ORD-120 – Melanie Barker/Finance and Administration Cabinet

Opinion Content:

March 24, 2026

In re: Melanie Barker/Finance and Administration Cabinet

Summary: The Finance and Administration Cabinet (“the Cabinet”)
did not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it denied a request
that did not sufficiently describe the public records sought and did not
state the manner in which the requester was a resident of the
Commonwealth.

Open Records Decision

Melanie Barker (“the Appellant”) submitted a request to the Cabinet for “the
completed attached record for this Kentucky Governor’s Out of Country Trip.” She
attached a blank copy of Form DOA-28A, “Request for Authorization of Out-of-
Country Travel.” The Cabinet timely denied the request on the grounds that it did
not sufficiently describe the records the Appellant sought and did not state the
manner in which the Appellant was a resident of the Commonwealth. This appeal
followed.

Under the Act, a public agency’s custodian of records “may require a written
application . . . describing the records to be inspected.” KRS 61.872(2)(a). A request
to inspect public records must describe those records in a manner “adequate for a
reasonable person to ascertain the nature and scope of [the] request.” Commonwealth
v. Chestnut, 250 S.W.3d 655, 661 (Ky. 2008). If the request is for copies of public
records, it must “precisely describe[ ] the public records which are readily available
within the public agency.” KRS 61.872(3)(b). A description is precise “if it describes
the records in definite, specific, and unequivocal terms.” 98-ORD-17 (internal
quotation marks omitted). “This standard is generally not met by requests that are
unlimited in temporal scope.” 20-ORD-017.

Here, the Appellant submitted a request for a form relating to an unspecified
foreign trip by a Governor who has been in office for more than six years. “A request
must be specific enough so that a public agency can identify and locate the records in

question.” OAG 89-8. Because the Cabinet could not identify the requested record
based on the description provided, the request was insufficiently specific. 1

Further, under KRS 61.872(2)(a), a public agency may require a person
requesting records “to provide a statement in the written application of the manner
in which the applicant is a resident of the Commonwealth under KRS 61.810(10)(a)
to (f).” Here, the Appellant’s request did not contain a statement explaining how she
qualifies as a Kentucky resident. Therefore, the Cabinet did not violate the Act when
it denied 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/ James M. Herrick
James M. Herrick
Assistant Attorney General

Ms. Melanie Barker
Barbara K. Dickens, Esq.
Ms. Laura Sharp

1 On appeal, the Cabinet states it has “subsequently determined [that] all records related to the
Governor’s travel are maintained, not by [the Cabinet], but by the Kentucky State Police.” Thus, the
Cabinet apparently does not have custody of the requested record.