24-ORD-120
May 13, 2024
In re: Todd Conley/Paintsville Lake State Park
Summary: The Paintsville Lake State Park (the “Park”) did not violate
the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it issued a response to a request
within five business days of receiving the request.
Open Records Decision
Todd Conley (“Appellant”) claims that on April 2, 2024, he submitted a request
to the Park for two lease agreements. On April 15, 2024, the Appellant initiated this
appeal claiming that he did not receive “a response in 3 days.”
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.” On appeal,
the Park asserts that it received the Appellant’s request on April 9, 2024, via email.1
The Park further asserts it granted the request on April 12, 2024, and provided 98
pages of responsive records to the Appellant. As proof, the Park provides a copy of the
request it received from the Appellant on April 9, 2024, which was dated April 2,
2024, and its response to that request, dated April 12, 2024. Accordingly, the Park
did not violate the Act when it timely issued its response to the Appellant’s request
within five business days of receipt.2
1
The Park also states that it received a similar but different written request from the Appellant on
April 5, 2024, and provides a copy of that request. However, the Appellant did not provide this request
to the Office as part of his request for appeal, and as a result, the Office cannot consider it as part of
this appeal. See KRS 61.880(2)(a).
2
The Appellant also claims that in March 2024 he made a similar request and “was told [he] filed
the wrong form and was given the correct form by” the Park, which he returned on April 2, 2024. The
Park disputes the Appellant’s claim that it required him to use a specific form. Instead, the Park
asserts that the Appellant’s first request on March 25, 2024, was a verbal request for records. AnA 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
#208
Distributed to:
Todd Conley
Robyn E. Howard
application to inspect must be in writing and an agency is not obligated to respond to verbal requests
for records. See KRS 61.872(2). However, an agency “shall not require the use of any particular form
for the submission of an open records request.” KRS 61.872(2)(c). Ultimately, there is a factual dispute
between the parties as to whether the Appellant’s initial request was made verbally or if the Park
required him to use a specific form. The Office cannot resolve factual disputes such as these in appeals
made under the Act. See, e.g., 23-ORD-330 (factual dispute about whether meeting minutes had been
made final); 23-ORD-317 (factual dispute about whether all responsive records were provided).
Similarly, the Office cannot resolve any factual dispute between the parties about whether the
Appellant actually received the Park’s response. See, e.g., 23-ORD-220; 21-ORD-233.