26-ORD-041 – Kyle Link/Meade County School District

Opinion Content:

February 10, 2026

In re: Kyle Link/Meade County School District

Summary: The Meade County School District (“the District”) violated
the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it did not respond to one request
and part of another.

Open Records Decision

On September 16, 2024, Kyle Link (“Appellant”) submitted the first of two
requests to the District for records related to a specific incident involving the
Appellant and two others. Having received no response to his first request, the
Appellant submitted another request to the District on March 28, 2025. In one portion
of the March 28 request, the Appellant asked for “any and all communications
regarding” the specific incident.1 The District provided records in response to the
second request. The Appellant initiated this appeal, claiming that the District failed
to respond to the September 16 request and that the District’s response to the March
28 request failed to provide records responsive to part of the request or to
affirmatively state the records do not exist.2

Under KRS 61.880(1), a public agency must decide within five business days
whether to grant a request or deny it and “notify in writing the person making the
request, within the five (5) day period, of its decision.” Here, on September 16, 2024,

1 The Appellant requested “[a] complete copy of all Meade County Public School records referring or
related to [the Appellant and two other people], including but not limited to records related to the
investigation resulting in limitations to [the Appellant] access to Meade County High School grounds,
records related to the removal of [the Appellant] as wrestling coach for Meade County Schools, and
any and all communications regarding and/or leading to said restrictions, limitations, and removal.”
2 Specifically, the Appellant asserted the District failed to provide “correspondence from [a specific
person] to soccer coaches regarding [the Appellant]” or state that those records do not exist.

the Appellant submitted a records request to the District and claims the District it
did not respond to that request. On appeal, the District admits it did not respond to
that request. Therefore, the District violated the Act.

Regarding the March 28 request, if requested records do not exist, the agency
must affirmatively so state within the five-day period provided in KRS 61.880(1). See
Bowling v. Lexington–Fayette Urb. Cnty. Gov’t, 172 S.W.3d 333, 341 (Ky. 2005). A
public agency cannot simply ignore portions of a request. See, e.g., 21-ORD-090. Here,
the Appellant requested “any and all communications regarding and/or leading to”
an incident and certain subsequent actions, but the District did not provide those
records or affirmatively state that those records do not exist.3 As a result, the District
violated the Act.

A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an action in the
appropriate circuit court under KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days from
the date of this decision. Under 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/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General

3 On appeal, the District asserts that “it has no records in its possession responsive to the request”
related to any “correspondence from the [the specific person] to any soccer coach in regard to [the
Appellant].” A statement from a public agency that it has provided all records within its possession is
“tantamount to an affirmative statement that the remaining records requested do not exist.” 04-ORD-
040. Here, however, the District’s initial response only provided records without any additional written
response or context.

Kyle Link
Dr. Mark Martin
Garrett Frank
Michelle Kenealy
Todd Clanton