26-ORD-027 – Glenda Wright/Kentucky Personnel Board

Opinion Content:

January 21, 2026

In re: Glenda Wright/Kentucky Personnel Board

Summary: The Kentucky Personnel Board (“the Board”) subverted the
intent of the Open Records Act (“the Act”), within the meaning of KRS
61.880(4), when it delayed access to requested records without proper
justification.

Open Records Decision

On December 22, 2025, Glenda Wright (“the Appellant”) submitted a request
for “the entire record & items associated with [her] case” before the Board, including
“all audio and video recordings[,] all communications related to this case, emails,
written orders,” and “everything filed and received” in the case. The Board responded
on December 29, 2025, stating it needed “additional time to comply pursuant to KRS
61.872(5)” because “pivotal” staff members were out of the office “due to the
Christmas and New Years holidays.” The Board further stated that “extra time is
needed to respond because of the recent volume of records requests served upon the
Board that extends its limited resources” and because “records may require
additional time to review and evaluate for responsiveness, make redactions, evaluate
legally required confidentiality, and evaluate exclusions.” The Board gave January 9,
2026, as the earliest date by which it would issue a final response and make records
available. This appeal followed.

Upon receiving a request to inspect records, a public agency must decide within
five business days whether to grant or deny the request. KRS 61.880(1). A public
agency may delay access to responsive records beyond five business days if such
records are “in active use, storage, or not otherwise available.” KRS 61.872(5). A
public agency that invokes KRS 61.872(5) to delay access to responsive records must
also notify the requester of the earliest date on which the records will be available
and provide a detailed explanation for the cause of the delay.

A requester who believes the agency’s delay is unreasonable may seek the
Attorney General’s review by alleging the agency subverted the intent of the Act by

“delay past the five (5) day period described in [KRS 61.880(1)].” KRS 61.880(4). In
determining how much delay is reasonable, the Office has considered the number of
records the requester has sought, the location of the records, and the content of the
records. See, e.g., 22-ORD-176; 01-ORD-140; OAG 92-117. Weighing these factors is
a fact-intensive analysis. See 21-ORD-045. Ultimately, the agency bears the burden
of proof to sustain its action. KRS 61.880(2)(c).

Here, the Appellant submitted a request to the Board, and in response, the
Board invoked KRS 61.872(5) to delay the Appellant’s access to the public records for
an additional five business days. As justification for the delay, the Board stated key
personnel were temporarily out of the office, a large number of other requests for
records were pending, and it was necessary to review and redact the records.
However, the Board did not state how many records were implicated by the
Appellant’s request or how long it would take to review and redact each record.
Moreover, while many unrelated, simultaneous requests to inspect records may place
a strain on a public agency, “[n]either the volume of unrelated requests nor staffing
issues justifies a delayed response.” See 19-ORD-188 n.1; see also 24-ORD-063; 22-
ORD-167. Rather, a public agency must “make proper provision for the uninterrupted
processing of open records requests” by having “an individual available to timely
process” those requests. 04-ORD-008; see also 24-ORD-039. In sum, the Board did not
meet its burden to justify an additional five days in responding to the Appellant’s
request. Accordingly, the Board subverted the intent of the Act, within the meaning
if KRS 61.880(4), when it delayed access to records beyond the five-day period allowed
under KRS 61.880(1).

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

Glenda Wright
Erritt H. Griggs, Esq.
Gwen McDonald