26-ORD-180 – Chelsea Smith/Garrard County Board of Education

Opinion Content:

April 27, 2026

In re: Chelsea Smith/Garrard County Board of Education

Summary: The Garrard County Board of Education (“the Board”) did
not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it timely responded to
a request under the Act and granted inspection of all responsive records
in its possession.

Open Records Decision

On Sunday, March 22, 2026, at 11:15 p.m., 1 Chelsea Smith (“the Appellant”)
submitted a request to the Board for certain “records related to an incident involving”
her child and a substitute teacher “that occurred on or about 3/20/2026 at Camp Dick
Robinson” Elementary School. Specifically, she requested any “incident reports,
behavior reports, or written documentation created by school staff”; “internal
investigation records, findings, or administrative documentation”; “written
statements from staff or witnesses”; “records reflecting disciplinary actions,
investigations, or substantiated complaints involving the substitute teacher during
[her] employment with Garrard County Schools, including while serving as a teacher
or substitute”; “documentation regarding the substitute teacher’s training, district
policies, or guidance related to student discipline, physical contact, or restraint”;
“records showing when or whether the incident was reported to school
administration, the district, or any external agency”; and “surveillance video [footage]
capturing the incident or the time period 30 minutes before and after the incident.”

In a timely response on March 25, 2026, the Board stated it was providing “the
report from the internal investigation conducted by” the school, which “should fulfill
the open records request[,] except for the [records] related to training,” which were
provided in a separate “attachment.” The Board further advised that a “video has
been preserved, but it is from too far a distance to clearly determine individuals or
actions.” On Friday, March 27, 2025, the Appellant requested to view the video the

1 Because the Appellant submitted her request on a Sunday, it is deemed to have been received by
the Board on the next business day, on Monday, March 23, 2026. See, e.g., 26-ORD-072 n.1.

following Monday and complained that the Board had not provided any records
responsive to several categories of her request. On March 30, 2026, the Board
provided a document it described as “the report from the parent contact log in Infinite
Campus that was completed on Friday,” March 27, 2026, and further stated, “At this
time, that is the extent of the records to share.” After viewing the video on the
morning of March 30, 2026, the Appellant initiated this appeal.

The Appellant claims the Board did not provide “[a]ll staff statements and
incident reports related to the incident”; “[a]ll emails, communications, or
correspondence related to the incident” 2; “[a]ll security camera footage from the time
and location of the incident”; or “[r]ecords of any prior complaints or investigations
related to the staff involved in this incident,” and “provided only partial video footage
from a distant camera that does not allow identification of events or individuals
involved.” In response, the Board states it has “provided all existing records
responsive to [the Appellant’s] original request” and “informed [the Appellant] no
additional complaint/investigation records exist concerning the staff member
involved in the incident.”

The Board has provided copies of some correspondence that took place after
the Appellant initiated this appeal. On March 31, 2026, the Board informed the
Appellant it had “secured additional footage of the camera angle [she had] viewed,”
which “lasts for a longer period of time,” as well as some footage from a “second
camera” that was “very foggy [and] almost not visible.” The Board stated it had
otherwise “provided all the records currently available.” In reply, the Appellant did
not attempt to make arrangements to view the additional footage, but asked the
Board to confirm whether certain records existed that had not yet been provided,
namely, “written staff statements or reports related to the incident,” “internal
communications regarding the incident,” “documentation used in preparation of the
principal’s incident report,” and “maintenance or operational records related to the
camera referenced in this matter.” 3 On April 2, 2026, the Board confirmed that no
such additional records existed. Therefore, the Board asserts the Appellant has “been
provided all existing records responsive to her original request,” she “is free to come
inspect the other video recordings which were identified to her [on] March 31,” she
“has been informed no additional complaint/investigation records exist concerning
the staff member involved,” and “[n]o existing responsive records have been withheld
from” the Appellant.

2 “All emails, communications, or correspondence related to the incident” was not one of the
categories of records requested by the Appellant.
3 To the extent the Appellant’s inquiry constitutes a separate open records request, it is not at issue
in this appeal.

Once a public agency states affirmatively that it has provided all responsive
records in its possession, the burden shifts to the requester to make a prima facie
case that additional records exist. See Bowling v. Lexington–Fayette Urb. Cnty. Gov’t,
172 S.W.3d 333, 341 (Ky. 2005). If the requester makes a prima facie case that the
records do or should exist, “then the agency may also be called upon to prove that its
search was adequate.” City of Fort Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer, 406 S.W.3d 842,
848 n.3 (Ky. 2013) (citing Bowling, 172 S.W.3d at 341). A requester must provide
some evidence to make a prima facie case that additional records exist, such as the
existence of a statute or regulation requiring the creation of the records or other
factual support for the existence of the records. See, e.g., 21-ORD-177; 11-ORD-074.
A requester’s bare assertion that records exist or should exist is insufficient to make
a prima facie case that the records actually do exist. See, e.g., 22-ORD-040. Here, the
Appellant has not made a prima facie case that additional responsive records exist
that have not been made available for her inspection. 4 Accordingly, the Board did not
violate the Act.

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. Chelsea Smith
Grant R. Chenoweth, Esq.
Kevin Stull, Superintendent

4 Because the additional video footage has been made available, this appeal is moot as to that
footage. See 40 KAR 1:030 § 6 (“If the requested documents are made available to the complaining
party after a complaint is made, the Attorney General shall decline to issue a decision in the matter.”).