25-ORD-045
February 14, 2025
In re: Debby and Jerry Noel/City of Muldraugh
Summary: The City of Muldraugh (“the City”) violated the Open
Records Act (“the Act”) when it did not grant or deny four requests
within five business days and when it delayed access to public records
on the basis that its employees, as opposed to the requested records,
were unavailable.
Open Records Decision
On December 20, 2024, Debby and Jerry Noel (“Appellant”) submitted four
requests to the City. Those requests sought “a copy of the newest employee policy
ordinance”; “the Itemized monthly budget for the month of June, August and
November”; “the name of the company that is doing the audit for the city this year”;
and “the total cost that the city of Muldraugh pays for on all benefits for each
employee including health, dental and vision insurance.” On January 15, 2025,
having received no response to their requests, the Appellants initiated this appeal.1
On appeal, the City provided the Office with all its communications with the
Appellants. First, on December 30, 2024, the City informed the Appellants that it
“will answer [the Appellants’] questions” as soon as possible. Then, on January 9,
2025, the City answered some of the Appellants’ requests, asked clarifying questions
about the scope of other requests, and stated that all requests would be fulfilled
“around January 20, 2025.”
1
The Appellants also provided the Office with a copy of their August 30 request for “a meeting with
the code enforcement board.” Because that is not a request to submit records, the Office lacks
jurisdiction to consider the City’s alleged nonresponse to that request. See, e.g., 25-ORD-026 (finding
the Office did not have jurisdiction to consider a complaint regarding a request that the agency
preserve certain records).Under KRS 61.880(1), a public agency has five business days to grant 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). Here,
the Appellants submitted their requests electronically on December 20, 2024, but the
City’s December 30, 2024, response did not grant or deny the requests or otherwise
explain that the records were “in active use, in storage or not otherwise available.”
Further, the City’s January 9, 2025, response—which partially granted the
request, asked clarifying questions,2 and identified January 20, 2025,3 as the date on
which all records would be made available—was submitted on the tenth business day
after receipt of the request. Moreover, the City did not state that responsive records
were “in active use, in storage or not otherwise available.” Instead, it cited its “altered
schedule” and the sickness of certain employees. The Office has previously held that
public agencies may not rely on employee absences to delay access to responsive
records. See, e.g., 23-ORD-013; 23-ORD-004. Accordingly, the City violated the Act
when it did not timely grant or deny the Appellants’ requests and when it improperly
relied on employee absences to delay access to responsive records.4
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.
2
The Office has previously found that a public agency does not violate the Act when it, in good faith,
sends a request seeking clarification of an ambiguity or for additional information to help locate
responsive records. See, e.g., 19-ORD-035.
3
The City provided a copy of its January 20 correspondence producing a record responsive to the
remaining unanswered request.
4
The Office notes that the City’s January 9 and January 20 correspondence were sent to a different
email address than those used by the Appellants when submitting their requests. Thus, it is not clear
whether the Appellants received either response. But the Office is unable to resolve factual disputes
between a requester and a public agency, such as whether a requester received an agency’s response
to his request. See, e.g., 23-ORD-220; 21-ORD-233.Russell Coleman
Attorney General
/s/ Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General
#034
Distributed to:
Jerry Noel
Anthony Lee
Lynnette McAdams
Michael Pike