Appeals to Kentucky Attorney General challenge tourism bureau’s handling of records on credit card spending, lobbying operations, and executive compensation
LEXINGTON, Ky. — A Lexington blogger has filed three formal appeals with the Kentucky Attorney General’s Office, accusing VisitLex — the publicly funded tourism bureau that promotes the Bluegrass region — of systematically obstructing public records requests about its spending, lobbying activities, and internal governance.
The appeals, filed on February 18, 2026, challenge responses VisitLex issued to open records requests submitted on December 30, 2025. Together, the three filings paint a picture of a public agency that pre-emptively cited sweeping legal exemptions, demanded unnecessary resubmissions, unilaterally narrowed the scope of requests, and in at least one case produced records that directly contradicted its own claims that no responsive documents existed.
VisitLex is a component unit of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, funded primarily through a 9.5% transient room tax assessed on hotels and short-term rentals in Fayette County. The bureau operates on an annual budget that has grown to approximately $16 million and is tasked with marketing the Lexington area to attract tourists and conventions. Its operations have drawn scrutiny in recent years over executive compensation, employee bonuses funded by public tax dollars, and credit card spending patterns.
All three responses were signed by Patricia J. Knight, VisitLex’s Vice President of Finance and Operations.
Credit card records: missed deadline, pre-emptive exemptions
The first appeal concerns a request for credit card statements, invoices, and expense reports covering calendar years 2024 and 2025. VisitLex acknowledged that approximately 5,200 records were potentially responsive and requested 30 business days to produce them. It also pre-cited two legal exemptions it said might apply: a personal privacy exemption and a commercial advantage exemption.
According to the appeal, VisitLex never produced the records within its own stated timeline. Thirty business days from the January 7 response would have been approximately February 18–19, and no documents had been provided as of the filing date.
The appeal argues that VisitLex’s cited exemptions are largely inapplicable. Credit card statements and expense reports are records generated by the agency’s own spending of public tax revenue, the appeal states, not confidential disclosures from third parties. It also notes that VisitLex cited the exemptions in a blanket fashion without identifying any specific record to which they applied — a practice the appeal contends violates the Open Records Act’s requirement that exemptions be strictly construed and justified on a record-by-record basis.
The Lexington Times previously reported that VisitLex employees accumulated $427,201.15 in credit card charges between July 2022 and March 2024, with significant spending on dining, bars, and entertainment. Those records were obtained only after the blog filed an open records appeal with the Attorney General.
Lobbying records: $60,000 retainer, seven lobbyists, and contradictory claims
The most detailed of the three appeals involves records related to VisitLex’s lobbying activities. The original request sought six categories of documents: contracts with lobbying firms, internal communications about lobbying, external communications with lobbyists, invoices and payment records, reports or briefing materials on lobbying strategy, and records required to be maintained under Kentucky law.
VisitLex’s initial response on January 7 declined to search for any records and demanded that the requestor first identify specific lobbying firms by name — information the request was designed to uncover. When no resubmission was made, VisitLex issued a follow-up response on January 22 in which it unilaterally limited the search to calendar year 2025 and responded category by category.
For three of the six categories — contracts, internal communications, and reports or briefing documents — VisitLex stated it found no responsive records. But the appeal argues that VisitLex’s own production under the remaining categories directly contradicts those claims.
Specifically, VisitLex produced twelve monthly invoices from the law firm McBrayer PLLC, each for a $5,000 retainer described as “Government Relations,” totaling approximately $60,000 for 2025. It also produced Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission registration forms for seven individual lobbyists — Jason Bentley, William Cantor, Kevin Cutter, Mark Higdon, Brent Lambert, Patrick Nolan, and Bryan Osborne — all registered through the firm MML&K Government Solutions, with VisitLex listed as employer and President Mary Quinn Ramer identified as the person directing legislative activity.
The appeal points out that VisitLex also produced an internal email dated January 16, 2026, in which Ramer forwarded MML&K lobbyist registration correspondence to Knight with the instruction “Remind me.” That email was produced under the category for records required by law, even as VisitLex simultaneously claimed no internal communications about lobbying existed — positions the appeal calls irreconcilable.
The appeal further challenges VisitLex’s blanket withholding of external communications with lobbyists and legislators, noting that the agency simultaneously described the withheld text messages as “purely personal” and as “preliminary correspondence… on legislative items of general interest to the tourism industry.” The appeal argues these characterizations are mutually exclusive: communications about legislative matters affecting the tourism industry cannot be both unrelated to any government function and substantively about the industry VisitLex exists to serve.
The appeal also flags that VisitLex delivered its records through a Dropbox link set to expire just 14 days later, and that it could not locate payment receipts for two McBrayer invoices despite confirming the payments were made.
Comprehensive records: seven pages of exemptions, no records searched
The third appeal challenges VisitLex’s response to a sweeping request for records across eight categories: compensation and bonuses, travel and hospitality expenses, procurement and vendor contracts, governance and board operations, conflicts of interest, internal complaints and whistleblowing, legal counsel, and core financial records.
According to the appeal, VisitLex declined to search for or produce any records for seven of the eight categories, instructing the requestor to resubmit with greater specificity and defined timeframes. For the one category it did address — compensation — VisitLex unilaterally narrowed the scope to fiscal year 2025 without the requestor’s consent and reserved 45 days to produce records.
The appeal characterizes the demand to resubmit as a constructive denial that triggers appeal rights under the Open Records Act, arguing that the original request described records by type and subject area with sufficient precision to satisfy the statute.
Perhaps most notably, VisitLex’s response included seven pages of pre-cited legal exemptions — spanning at least eight different statutory provisions — without applying any of them to a specific record. The exemptions ranged from personal privacy and attorney-client privilege to a narrow provision protecting prospective business locations, which the appeal calls facially inapplicable to compensation records, travel expenses, or board minutes. The appeal also notes multiple statutory citation errors across VisitLex’s responses, including a reference to a nonexistent statute.
Appeals allege broader pattern
The comprehensive records appeal explicitly asks the Attorney General to consider VisitLex’s responses in the context of a broader pattern. Across all of the December 30 requests, the appeal alleges, VisitLex denied the existence of records without documenting its search methodology, demanded resubmissions for requests that were already sufficiently precise, pre-cited exemptions for records it had not yet searched for, and included erroneous statutory citations in multiple response letters.
The appeals collectively ask the Attorney General to find that VisitLex violated the Kentucky Open Records Act on multiple grounds and to order the bureau to conduct thorough searches and produce all responsive records promptly, with any redactions narrowly tailored and justified on a record-by-record basis.
Background: ongoing scrutiny of VisitLex
The appeals are the latest chapter in an ongoing examination of VisitLex’s operations. In February 2024, the Lexington Times reported that four VisitLex employees earned more than Lexington Mayor Linda Gorton, with President Mary Quinn Ramer earning $282,536 annually compared to the mayor’s $162,063. In March 2024, the blog reported that VisitLex distributed $284,745.05 in bonuses during fiscal year 2024, funded through the hotel tax, raising questions under the Kentucky Constitution and state statutes that prohibit additional compensation beyond that set by ordinance for public employees. Ramer received a $56,507.20 bonus, bringing her total annual compensation to $339,043.20.
A subsequent report in April 2024 documented $427,201.15 in credit card charges by VisitLex employees over a roughly 21-month period, with substantial spending on dining and entertainment. Those transactions were disclosed only after the blog filed an appeal with the Attorney General.
The Kentucky Attorney General’s Open Records Division will review the filings and issue decisions, which are binding unless challenged in circuit court.