24-ORD-269
December 12, 2024
In re: Danny Maiden/City of Carrollton
Summary: The City of Carrollton (“the City”) did not violate the Open
Records Act (“the Act”) when it did not provide copies of records that do
not exist or were not precisely described.
Open Records Decision
On November 5, 2024, Danny Maiden (“the Appellant”) requested “[a]ny and
all documents or information pertaining to or related to the position of detective,
investigator, [or] public affairs officer” for the Carrollton Police Department,
“[i]ncluding [the number of] applicants and who was interviewed and by whom they
were interviewed,” as well as “the organizational structure of the department from
Chief down to the newest member.” In a timely response, the City provided a copy of
a Facebook post advertising an opening for “two new police officers” and a job
description for the position of Police Detective, which the City stated were “[t]he only
responsive documents.” The City advised it had advertised positions through a third-
party website known as “Indeed,” but those postings had expired and were not in its
possession. The City further noted the Act does not require an agency to provide
information, so it declined to answer the Appellant’s questions regarding “how many
applications were received, date of interviews, etc.” This appeal followed.
The Appellant claims he “did not receive the organizational structure of the
department
or
any
documents”
showing
there
was
“a
position
for
detective/investigator for the department.” In response, the City reiterates that
expired job advertisements on Indeed are no longer accessible and that “there is no
document listing those who were interviewed, nor is there an organizational chart.”
The City also states Police Detective is the only position listed by the Appellant for
which a job description exists. Once a public agency states affirmatively that no
further records exist, the burden shifts to the requester to present a prima facie case
that additional records do exist. See Bowling v. Lexington–Fayette Urb. Cnty. Gov’t,
172 S.W.3d 333, 341 (Ky. 2005). Here, the Appellant has not established a prima facie
case that any such records exist in the City’s custody or control.However, in reply to the City’s response, the Appellant claims the City should
have provided copies of a specific individual’s application and background check for
the position of detective, as well as minutes from a city council meeting relating to
the creation of the detective position. Under KRS 61.872(3)(b), it is incumbent on a
person requesting copies of public records to “precisely describe[ ] the public records
which are readily available within the public agency.” At a minimum, the request
must be “specific enough so that a public agency can identify and locate the records
in question.” 13-ORD-077. Records must be described in “definite, specific and
unequivocal terms.” 08-ORD-147. Here, the Appellant did not specifically request an
individual employee’s application or background check, or the meeting minutes of the
city council. Accordingly, the City did not violate the Act when it did not provide
records not precisely described in the Appellant’s request. See, e.g., 23-ORD-032.
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.
Russell Coleman
Attorney General
/s/ James M. Herrick
James M. Herrick
Assistant Attorney General
#471
Distribution:
Mr. Danny Maiden
Jake A. Thompson, Esq.
Ms. Melinda Wright
Hon. Robb Adams