23-ORD-165
July 11, 2023
In re: Scott Roberts/Bullitt County Clerk’s Office
Summary: The Bullitt County Clerk’s Office (the “Clerk’s Office”)
violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it failed to issue
responses to requests within five business days of receiving those
requests.
Open Records Decision
On May 30, 2023, Scott Roberts (“Appellant”) submitted two requests to the
Clerk’s Office for an electronic copy of records related to the May 2023 primary
election. The first request sought “the final signed or most recent unsigned contract
and/or purchase agreement with the vendor for e-pollbooks used during” the May
2023 primary election. The second request similarly sought contracts, but related to
“the vendor for video surveillance of election machines.” On June 12, 2023, having
received no response from the Clerk’s Office, the Appellant initiated this appeal.
On June 14, 2023, after the appeal was initiated, the Clerk’s Office responded
to the Appellant and provided several hundred pages of two categories of electronic
voting records to the Appellant. The Clerk’s Office attempted to make available a
third category of records to the Appellant, but the file was too large to send through
email.1
1
The Appellant’s two requests were for electronic copies of “the final signed or most recent unsigned
contract and/or purchase agreement with the vendor for e-pollbooks used during your May 2023
primary” as well as those same records related to “the vendor for video surveillance of election
machines.” The records that the Clerk’s Office provided appear to be copies of the electronic voter
signature rosters, not a “purchase agreement” or “contract,” as requested in the Appellant’s initial
requests. But see 23-ORD-152 (in which the Appellant requested copies of the electronic signatureUpon receiving a request to inspect records, a public agency must decide
within five business days whether to grant the request, or deny the request and
explain why. KRS 61.880(1). A public agency may also delay access to responsive
records if such records are “in active use, storage, or not otherwise available.”
KRS 61.872(5). A public agency that invokes KRS 61.872(5) to delay access to
responsive records must also notify the requester of the earliest date on which the
records will be available and provide a detailed explanation for the cause of the delay.
Here, the Clerk’s Office did not grant the request, deny it, or invoke
KRS 61.872(5) to delay access to the responsive records. Moreover, the Clerk’s Office
did not deny that it received the Appellant’s two requests or claim that it issued a
timely response to those requests. Thus, the Clerk’s Office violated the Act when it
did not issue timely responses to the Appellant’s requests.
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 OAGAppeals@ky.gov.
Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
s/Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General
#247
Distributed to:
Scott Roberts
Kevin Mooney
Tammy R. Baker
rolls). But the Appellant does not allege the records he received are not those he requested, or that
additional records exist but were not provided.