In 2009, The Owensboro Messenger Inquirer experienced the frustration that University of Louisville stakeholders and others, as well as the media, are currently experiencing.

In May, the president of the Kentucky Community and Technical College System dismissed Paula Gastenveld from her position as President of Owensboro Community and Technical College, “a public institution supported by public funding.”No explanation was given for the dismissal.

https://law.justia.com/cases/kentucky/court-of-appeals/2012/2011-ca-000…

The Messenger Inquirer requested access to employment records relating to Gastenveld and two other employees, including performance evaluations — to which the open records law extends protection absent a heightened public interest.

In affirming the newspaper’s right of access to the records, including the evaluations, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reasoned:

“The information is the type in which the public has a legitimate interest. More specifically, it is the type of information that sheds light on the operation of a public agency. Paula Gastenveld was the president of a local college and was removed from that position without explanation. A fundamental issue in her removal was an intra-organizational dispute involving Gastenveld, Beardmore, and Fiorella.   Several community leaders and organizations were involved – either directly or indirectly – with her removal or protest of her removal.   At least some of those leaders and organizations were aware of the fact that Gastenveld's removal was related to the performance evaluations at issue.

“It is a long standing principal that the public has a right to be informed as to matters relating to the operation of government. City of St. Matthews v. Voice of St. Matthews, Inc., 519 S.W.2d 811, 815 (Ky.1974).   Certainly the basis on which the president of a public university is removed from her position is a matter relating to the operation of government. In this case, there is an issue of transparency regarding the dismissal of Paula Gastenveld from her position as president of OCTC. The circumstances surrounding the situation suggest that the performance evaluations at issue are directly related to Gastenveld's removal. Thus, it is likely that ‘the public interest in the details of the operation of a public agency could be advanced by the disclosure of non-personal information contained in the evaluation.’”

There is no legally principled basis on which to deny an open records request like that of WDRB’s Marcus Green for “for Schatzel's resignation letter; personnel file, her performance evaluation; and any letters of reprimand.” It is likely that the university has received multiple open records requests relating to UofL’s administrative shakeup.

The presence of non-disparagement agreements on both sides of Schatzel’s resignation does not excuse the university from disclosing nonexempt records — those containing disparaging material included — for which no exception can legitimately be claimed.

On this issue, the Kentucky Attorney General has observed:

“‘A public agency cannot nullify the mandatory provisions of the Open Records Law by a promise of confidentiality which is not authorized by KRS 61.870 to 61.884.’

“In other words, a public agency cannot bargain away the public’s right to know. The agency can only ‘promise confidentiality as far as the exemptions permit.’”

https://search.app/BCYq4yNiAZsBzWqd7

And let’s not go down the open meetings rabbit hole!