24-ORD-092
April 3, 2024
In re: Jason Easley/City of Cloverport
Summary: The City of Cloverport (the “City”) violated the Open
Records Act (“the Act”) when it did not properly invoke KRS 61.872(5)
to delay access to records.
Open Records Decision
On March 4, 2024, Jason Easley (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the City
for copies of “detailed bank statements” from the previous four months for 13 bank
accounts. On March 8, 2024, the Appellant inquired about the status of his request,
and on March 11, 2024, the City stated it “will take some time to redact the account
numbers on each check for each account.” On March 12, 2024, having received no
further response from the City, the Appellant initiated this appeal.
Upon 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 beyond
five business days 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. The Office
has previously found that a public agency fails to justify a delay when it does not
explain how long it would take to process responsive records. See, e.g., 23-ORD-328
(the public agency did not properly justify a six-month delay to fulfill a request
implicating 382 “data files” when it failed to explain what it meant by “data file” or
how long it would take to process each record).Here, the Appellant submitted his request on March 4, 2024, but the City’s only
response was that it “will take some time to redact the account numbers on each
check for each account.” The City did not specifically invoke KRS 61.872(5), notify the
Appellant of the earliest date on which the records would be made available, or
provide a detailed explanation for the cause of the delay.1 As a result, the City
violated the Act when it did not properly invoke KRS 61.872(5) to delay the
Appellant’s access to the requested records beyond five business days.
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.
Russell Coleman
Attorney General
/s/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General
#163
Distributed to:
Jason Easley
Keri Lee
Stephen Hopkins
Candy Weatherholt
1
On appeal, the City asserts that the requested records are “currently under review and a number
of records may be exempt by KRS 61.878(1)(h) and other records are banking records.” While the Office
has previously upheld the redaction of bank account numbers to relieve agencies of the burden of
changing accounts after the information is released, 22-ORD-112, it is not clear how KRS 61.878(1)(h)
would apply to the withheld records because the City is not a “law enforcement agency.” The City
further asserts that the Appellant “may not meet the definition of KRS 61.870,” but does not explain
what it means. The only provision of KRS 61.870 relevant to the Appellant is the definition of “resident
of the Commonwealth,” which the Appellant meets. KRS 61.870(10). The City does not provide any
further details to support its actions, other than stating it is conducting a meeting “to further
determine the requests for records.”