25-ORD-068
March 18, 2025
In re: Tanyqua Oliver/Lexington–Fayette Urban County Government
Summary: The Office cannot find that the Lexington–Fayette Urban
County Government (“LFUCG”) violated the Open Records Act (“the
Act”) because the Office is unable to resolve the factual dispute between
the parties regarding whether LFUCG made the requested records
available for inspection.
Open Records Decision
Tanyqua Oliver (“Appellant”) submitted a request to LFUCG to inspect video
recordings of its “Code Enforcement Board Hearings” and the code enforcement
board’s “Standard Operating Procedure.” LFUCG granted the request, stated the
date and time when the records would be available for inspection, and asked the
Appellant to state when she would “be coming into the office to view these records”
so that it could “have the information set up for [her] review to reduce [her] wait
time.” The Appellant initiated this appeal, claiming that when she went to inspect
the records, “everyone left the office after telling [her] to come in and view the
records.”
On appeal, LFUCG asserts that it did not refuse to allow the Appellant to
inspect the requested records. Rather, LFUCG explains that the paper records were
available to be inspected in its conference room, but the video records were not
available for inspection when the Appellant arrived because the employee who knew
how to access them was at lunch and the Appellant had not made an appointment to
inspect the records. LFUCG states it advised the Appellant that the videos remained
available for inspection prior to the Appellant’s initiation of this appeal, but she
declined to return. Thus, a factual dispute exists between the parties regarding
whether the requested records were actually made available to the Appellant.The Office has regularly found it is unable to resolve factual disputes between
the parties to an appeal under KRS 61.880(2)(a), including disputes about whether
the requested records were actually made available to the requester. See, e.g., 23-
ORD-220 (the Office cannot resolve a factual dispute regarding whether a requester
received a public agency’s response to a request); 22-ORD-010 (the Office is unable to
resolve a factual dispute between the parties regarding whether the records that have
been provided are different from those records sought); 19-ORD-083 (stating this
Office cannot “resolve the factual dispute between the parties regarding the disparity
between records which have been provided and those sought but not provided”).
Similarly, here, the Office cannot resolve the factual dispute between the parties as
to whether LFUCG made the records available to the Appellant because the Office
cannot make a factual finding about what occurred on the day the parties met to
facilitate the records inspection. As a result, the Office cannot find that LFUCG
violated the Act.
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
#072
Distributed to:
Tanyqua Oliver
Michael Cravens
Evan P. Thompson