Skip to main content

23-ORD-229

August 29, 2023

In re: Reggie Williamson/Pike County Fiscal Court

Summary: The Pike County Fiscal Court (the “Fiscal Court”) violated
the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it failed to properly respond to a
request to inspect records within five business days. The Office cannot
find the Fiscal Court violated the Act when it provided what the
requester considers to be an incomplete record.

Open Records Decision

On October 18, 2022, Reggie Williamson (“Appellant”) submitted a request to
the Fiscal Court to inspect “public records which would include the name of the
individual, or individuals, who petitioned for [a] road to be paved with black top” and
“showing the name(s) of the individual who signed to take the road into the county
system.” In response, the Fiscal Court provided what it considered to be all responsive
records. On March 10, 2023, the Appellant submitted a second request, which sought
both the same records as the October 18 request and “a copy of the Pike County Fiscal
Court meeting prior to December 16, 1985” where the first reading of a motion to
accept a specific road into the Pike County road system was made. On July 26, 2023,
having received no further response from the Fiscal Court, the Appellant initiated
this appeal.

Under KRS 61.880(1), upon receiving a request for 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 writing the
person making the request, within the five (5) day period, of its decision.” Here, the
Appellant claims he submitted his second request on March 10, but had not received
a response as of July 26. In response, the Fiscal Court has not claimed it respondedto, or failed to receive, the March 10 request. Thus, the Fiscal Court violated the Act
when it failed to respond to the Appellant's March 10 request within five business
days.

The Appellant also claims he has “not been allowed to see the [records] that
[he has] asked to see.” The Fiscal Court asserts it has provided all responsive records
and “no other documents” exist. The Office has long held that it cannot resolve factual
disputes about whether all records responsive to a request have been provided, or
whether requested records should contain additional content. See, e.g., 23-ORD-027;
22-ORD-010; 19-ORD-083; 03-ORD-061; OAG 89-81. Accordingly, the Office is unable
to find the Fiscal Court violated the Act when it provided what it considered to be all
records responsive to the Appellant’s request.

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/ Zachary M. Zimmerer

Zachary M. Zimmerer

Assistant Attorney General

#338

Distributed to:

Reggie Williamson
Ray S. Jones, II
Paul D. Howard

LLM Summary
The decision in 23-ORD-229 addresses a violation by the Pike County Fiscal Court for not responding within the required five business days to a public records request. It also discusses the inability of the Office to resolve disputes regarding the completeness of the records provided, citing multiple previous decisions to support this principle.
Disclaimer:
The Sunshine Law Library is not exhaustive and may contain errors from source documents or the import process. Nothing on this website should be taken as legal advice. It is always best to consult with primary sources and appropriate counsel before taking any action.
Requested By:
Reggie Williamson
Agency:
Pike County Fiscal Court
Forward Citations:
Neighbors

Support Our Work

The Coalition needs your help in safeguarding Kentuckian's right to know about their government.