23-ORD-003
January 5, 2023
In re: The Kentucky Democratic Party/City of Somerset
Summary: The City of Somerset (“the City”) violated the Open Records
Act (“the Act”) when it failed to notify the Appellant within five business
days whether it would comply with six requests to inspect records it
received from the requester on the same day.
Open Records Decision
On November 21, 2022, two employees of the Kentucky Democratic Party (the
“Appellant”) submitted in total six separate requests to the City. On November 23,
2022, the City responded, stating it would “email [the Appellant] next week with a
more substantive response.” On December 3, 2022, the first day after the fifth
business day following the City’s acknowledgment of receipt of the request, the
Appellant initiated six identical appeals against the City because it had not received
any further response.1
Under KRS 61.880(1), upon receiving a request to inspect 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
1
Because both requesters work for the same organization and have raised the same issue on
appeal, i.e., timeliness, the Office has consolidated these six appeals. See, e.g., 22-ORD-167. Moreover,
the Office notes that, on appeal, the City has provided a more substantive response, including 234
responsive records, and has stated it will provide even more responsive records. The Appellant’s six
requests spanned 19 different categories of records, including: emails between five individuals; the
personnel files, timesheets, and leave requests of six individuals; all records related to three identified
organizations; all records related to two named individuals; all speeches or other writings from a
named individual; a copy of that named individual’s financial and ethics disclosures; and all lawsuits
or complaints filed against the City since 2018. Just as the Office consolidated these appeals, so too
may a public agency consolidate multiple requests made on behalf of the same organization and
received close in time to one another when considering whether to deny them under KRS 61.872(6).writing the person making the request, within the five (5) day period, of its decision.”
Here, the City’s November 23, 2022 response did not inform the Appellant whether
the City would comply with the requests or deny them and explain why. Thus, the
City’s responses failed to comply with KRS 61.880(1), and the City issued no other
response within five business days of receiving the request. Accordingly, the City
violated the Act when it did not fully respond to the Appellant’s request within five
business days.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating 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 e-mailed to OAGAppeals@ky.gov.
Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
s/Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General
#454-59
Distributed to:
Sebastian Kitchen
Charlotte Flanary
Nick Bradley
John B. Adams
Alan Keck