25-ORD-012
January 13, 2025
In re: David Webster/Christian County Public Schools
Summary: Christian County Public Schools (“CCPS”) subverted the
intent of the Open Records Act (“the Act”), within the meaning of
KRS 61.880(4), when it did not respond to a request within five business
days, and when it invoked KRS 61.872(5) but failed to give a detailed
explanation of the reason for delay or dispense with the request on the
date by which it had said records would be available for inspection.
Open Records Decision
On November 22, 2024, David Webster (“Appellant”) submitted a request to
CCPS seeking “the group text message thread, including attachments, exchanged
between” the Superintendent of CCPS, “Board members of Districts 1 through 5,” the
Superintendent’s secretary, and the CCPS board attorney from the date the
Superintendent assumed office to the date of the request. CCPS initially responded
on December 3, 2024, stating that, although the request was so broad as to place “an
unreasonable burden” on CCPS, it would provide non-exempt records within “an
additional three business days.” Three business days later, on December 6, 2024,
CCPS informed the Appellant that it was “still gathering and processing” responsive
records and would provide them on December 9, 2024. On December 9, 2024, CCPS
again informed the Appellant that it would need additional time, stating that
responsive records would be provided on December 11, 2024. This appeal followed.
Under KRS 61.880(1), a public agency has five business days to fulfill or deny
a request for public records. This period may be extended if the records are “in active
use, in storage or not otherwise available,” but the agency must give “a detailed
explanation of the cause . . . for further delay and the place, time, and earliest date
on which the public record[s] will be available for inspection.” KRS 61.872(5). Under
KRS 61.880(4), a person may petition the Attorney General to review an agency’saction if the “person feels the intent of [the Act] is being subverted by an agency short
of denial of inspection, including but not limited to . . . delay past the five (5) day
period described in [KRS 61.880(1) or] excessive extensions of time.”
Here, although CCPS did respond to the request within five business days, it
did not give a detailed explanation of the cause for further delay, nor did it invoke
KRS 61.872(5). And although CCPS stated the earliest date on which the records
would be available for inspection, it did not make any records available by that date.
Moreover, it missed the second date on which it stated records would be available for
inspection. The Office has found that a public agency does not comply with
KRS 61.872(5) when it notifies the requester of the earliest date on which requested
records would be available but then misses its self-imposed deadline. See, e.g., 23-
ORD-079; 21-ORD-011. Therefore, CCPS subverted the intent of the Act by delay and
excessive extensions of time, within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4), when it failed to
invoke KRS 61.872(5) or make a final disposition of the Appellant’s request by the
date on which it said the records would be made available.1
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/ Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General
1
After this appeal was initiated, the Appellant informed the Office that CCPS had issued a final
response providing the requested records with numerous redactions. Under KRS 61.880(2)(a), this
Office’s mandate is to review the request for records and the agency’s response to determine whether
the agency violated the Act. In finding CCPS’s initial responses to the request subverted the Act, the
Office has carried out its mandate. The Office declines to consider here the new issues raised for the
first time on appeal regarding the sufficiency of CCP’s final response. See, e.g., 25-ORD-010; 23-ORD-
333 n.1; 22-ORD-200 n.2; 22-ORD-170 n.2; 22-ORD-142 n.3; 21-ORD-177 (stating the Office may
decline to consider new issues raised by the parties’ subsequent correspondence on appeal). If the
Appellant believes CCPS’s final response was insufficient, he may initiate a separate appeal by
providing the Office with a copy of his original request and CCPS’s final response. See
KRS 61.880(2)(a).#507
Distributed to:
David Webster
Jessica Addison, Assistant Superintendent, Christian County Public Schools
Christopher Bentzel, Superintendent, Christian County Public Schools
Jack N. Lackey, Jr., Board Attorney, Christian County Board of Education