26-ORD-133 – Dennis Conley/City of Raceland

Opinion Content:

March 30, 2026

In re: Dennis Conley/City of Raceland

Summary: The City of Raceland (“the City”) violated the Open Records
Act (“the Act”) when it failed to respond to a request.

Open Records Decision

On February 20, 2026, a group of 43 individuals, including Dennis Conley
(“Appellant”) submitted a request to the City for records related to a City employee’s
dismissal. On March 2, 2026, having received no response from the City, the
Appellant initiated this appeal.

Under KRS 61.880(1), upon receiving a request for records under the Act, a
public agency “shall determine within five (5) [business] days . . . after the receipt of
any such request whether to comply with the request and shall notify in writing the
person making the request, within the five (5) day period, of its decision.” Here, the
Appellant submitted a request to the City on February 20, and as of March 2, he had
yet to receive a response. On appeal, the City admits it failed to respond to the
Appellant’s request. 1 As a result, the City violated the Act when it failed to respond
to a request. 2

1 The City states that it “issued a written response to the requester advising that, due to the need
to review and compile the requested records, the City anticipated providing responsive materials on
or before March 6, 2026.”
2 Under KRS 61.872(2)(a), a public agency’s official custodian of records “may require a written
application, signed by the applicant and with his or her name printed legibly on the application,
describing the records to be inspected.” “[T]o invoke the Office’s jurisdiction, the person seeking to
enforce the Act by appeal to the Attorney General must be the same person who submitted the request
for records.” 25-ORD-180; see also KRS 61.880. It is not immediately apparent that the request here,
which includes only the first names of multiple individuals, meets the requirement that the application
be “signed by the applicant.” Nor is it apparent that the person seeking enforcement of the Act can be
considered the same person who submitted the request for records. However, because the City has not

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/ Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General

Dennis Conley
Tony Wilson
Reagan Reed
Suzie Gibeaut

alleged that the Appellant has not complied with either KRS 61.872(2)(a) or KRS 61.880, the Office
need not resolve those issues.