24-ORD-097
April 11, 2024
In re: Aimee Perry/Eminence Independent School District
Summary: The Office cannot find that the Eminence Independent
School District (the “District”) violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”)
because it cannot resolve the factual dispute between the parties as to
whether the records provided are different from the records requested.
Open Records Decision
Aimee Perry (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the District to inspect seven
categories of records. In a timely response, the District partially granted the request
and provided 31 pages of responsive records.1 The District also partially denied the
request and stated that it does not possess any records responsive to parts of her
request. The Appellant initiated this appeal because she claims the District did not
provide her with the school board’s evaluation of the Superintendent that should have
been conducted in 2023.
In 21-ORD-253 the Office explained that it cannot resolve a factual dispute
between the parties as to whether the records provided are different from the records
sought. Here, the Appellant asserts that the “Superintendent is to be evaluated every
year by the board members” but she “was not provided the evaluation [she] requested
for 2023 in detail.” In response, the District asserts that it granted this part of the
Appellant’s request and included the evaluation among the 31 pages of responsive
records it provided to her.2 Here, there exists a factual dispute whether the records
1
The District received the Appellant’s request on March 12, 2024, and issued its response, within
five business days, on March 19, 2024. Thus, its response was timely.
2
Specifically, the District states that KRS 156.557(6)(b) “requires the summative evaluation of the
superintendent to be in writing, and to be discussed and adopted in an open meeting of the board,
reflected in the Board’s minutes, and made available to the public upon request.” The District asserts
it met this requirement when it memorialized the “summative evaluation” in the meeting minutes it
provided to the Appellant. To the extent the Appellant seeks a more detailed evaluation than the one
provided, the District claims no such record exists.previously provided to the Appellant are the records that she requested. As a result,
the Office cannot find that the District violated the Act because it cannot resolve the
factual dispute between the parties.
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
#170
Distributed to:
Aimee Perry
Danny Fisher
Buddy Berry
Grant R. Chenoweth