Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
This matter having been presented to the Attorney General in an open records appeal filed by David C. Cross on June 16, 2015, and Mr. Cross having acknowledged that this appeal "is basically the same appeal on June 5, 2015," but narrower in scope, we find that 15-ORD-130 is controlling authority on the issue he presents for the second time. In 15-ORD-130, we affirmed the Bullitt County Judge/Executive's denial of Mr. Cross' May 27, 2015, request for information (agenda) packets provided to the magistrates for consideration at a June 2, 2015, meeting. We reasoned that "[t]he right to inspect public records attaches only after . . . records have been prepared, owned, used, in the possession of, or retained by the [public agency]" and that "[n]o such right attaches for records that have not yet come into existence." Here, as in 15-ORD-130, we find that the Bullitt County Judge/Executive did not violate the Open Records Act in denying Mr. Cross' June 5 request for the information packet to be provided to the magistrates at the commencement of the fiscal court's June 16 meeting, that packet having not yet been created or finalized, and therefore not in existence, at the time of his request. A copy of 15-ORD-130 is attached and its reasoning as to this issue, adopted in full.
Either party may appeal this decision by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.