23-ORD-185
July 25, 2023
In re: Jason Moncer/Jessamine County School District
Summary: The Jessamine County School District (“the District”) did
not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”), or subvert the intent of the
Act within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4), when it charged a copying fee
of ten cents per page.
Open Records Decision
On May 24, 2023, Jason Moncer (“Appellant”) requested email records of a
District employee containing certain terms between February 1 and May 24, 2023.
The District provided him with 922 emails1 but withheld 491 emails under
KRS 61.878(1)(h), (i), and (j).
On May 25, 2023, the Appellant requested email records of another District
employee containing certain terms between November 1, 2021, and May 25, 2023.
The District provided him 4,766 emails but withheld 255 emails on the same grounds
it asserted in its previous denial.
On June 19, 2023, the Appellant requested email records of a third District
employee containing certain terms between September 1, 2022, and June 10, 2023.
The District provided him six emails but withheld two emails on the same grounds it
asserted in its previous denials. These consolidated appeals followed.
On appeal, the District states its investigation is now completed and all of the
withheld emails have been provided to the Appellant. Accordingly, the denials are
1
In its response to each of the Appellant’s requests, the District made certain redactions under the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, and its state equivalent,
KRS 160.700, which are incorporated into the Act under KRS 61.878(1)(k) and 61.878(1)(l),
respectively. The Appellant has not questioned these redactions.now moot. See 40 KAR 1:030 § 6. However, the Appellant complains that he was
improperly charged for copies at the rate of ten cents per page.
Under KRS 61.880(4), a person may appeal to this Office if he “feels the intent
of [the Act] is being subverted by an agency short of denial of inspection, including
but not limited to the imposition of excessive fees.” However, under KRS 61.874(3), a
“public agency may prescribe a reasonable fee for making copies of nonexempt public
records requested for use for noncommercial purposes.” It has long been held that ten
cents per page is a reasonable fee for copies. Friend v. Rees, 696 S.W.2d 325, 326 (Ky.
App. 1985); see also 22-ORD-002 n.3; 01-ORD-136. Therefore, the District did not
violate or subvert the intent of the Act when it charged a fee of ten cents per page.2
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 OAGAppeals@ky.gov.
Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
s/ James M. Herrick
James M. Herrick
Assistant Attorney General
#277/278/279
Distributed to:
Mr. Jason Moncer
Mr. Matt Moore
Mr. Steven Scrivner
Howard Downing, Esq.
2
The Office notes, however, that the Appellant did not ask for electronic copies of the records. If he
had, and the only reason the District printed them was to facilitate redactions, then the District could
not charge a copying fee. That is because an agency may not pass on to a requester the cost of
reproducing electronic records in hard copy format for the sole purpose of making redactions. See
Commonwealth, Dep’t of Ky. State Police v. Courier Journal, 601 S.W.3d 501, 508 (Ky. App. 2020); see
also 23-ORD-173.