25-ORD-080
March 25, 2025
In re: David Webster/Christian County Public Schools
Summary: Christian County Public Schools (“CCPS”) did not violate
the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it withheld communications
between staff and Board members that were exempt from disclosure
under KRS 61.878(1)(a), (k), or (s).
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 stated it
would need additional time to provide responsive records.1 Subsequently, CCPS
provided responsive records with redactions made under KRS 61.878(1)(a), (k),2 and
(s). This appeal followed.3
To determine whether CCPS properly invoked the claimed exemptions, the
Office asked it to provide unredacted copies of the records. See KRS 61.880(2)(c). Of
1
CCPS’s initial response was previously the subject of 25-ORD-012, in which the Appellant
challenged the delayed response to his request. That decision did not address the adequacy of CCPS’s
production because the appeal was initiated before CCPS provided any responsive records.
2
Specifically, CCPS invokes the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”), 20 U.S.C.
§ 1232g, incorporated into the Act by KRS 61.878(2)(k).
3
CCPS alternatively argues that the requested records “do not qualify as public records under the
[Act] because they are not in the possession of, or retained by,” CCPS. However, despite that assertion,
the record before the Office shows clearly that CCPS took possession of the records, conducted an
extensive review for exempted information, redacted the records, and provided redacted copies to the
Appellant. As such, CCPS has waived any argument that the records requests are not “public records”
because it does not possess or retain them.course, the Office cannot disclose the contents of these records. Id. But having
reviewed them, it is clear they all are exempt under KRS 61.878(1)(a), (k), and (s).
Most of the redactions were made under KRS 61.878(1)(s), which exempts from
disclosure “[c]ommunications of a purely personal nature unrelated to any
governmental function.” The messages redacted by CCPS are related to individuals’
birthdays, celebratory holidays messages, and notices of death of family members.
Those types of messages do not relate to any governmental function of CCPS or its
board. Accordingly, CCPS did not violate the Act by withholding these records.
KRS 61.878(1)(a) exempts from disclosure “[p]ublic records containing
information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute
a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” In reviewing an agency’s denial
of an open records request based on the personal privacy exemption, the Office
balance the public’s right to know what is happening within government against the
personal privacy interest at stake in the record. See Zink v. Commonwealth, Dep’t of
Workers’ Claims, 902 S.W.2d 825, 828 (Ky. App. 1994). Here, CCPS describes the
withheld communications as “private student health information” and “private
employee health information.” The Office has long recognized that “medical
information is information in which a person has a privacy interest and the disclosure
of records containing such information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of
privacy.” See, e.g., 22-ORD-144; 06-ORD-209. The Office’s review of the
communications confirms CCPS’s description of them. Accordingly, the CCPS did not
violate the Act when it withheld them.
Finally, FERPA is incorporated into the Act by KRS 61.878(1)(k). FERPA
provides that “[n]o funds shall be made available under any applicable program to
any educational agency or institution which has a policy or practice of permitting the
release of education records (or personally identifiable information contained therein
other than directory information . . .) of students without the written consent of their
parents to any individual, agency, or organization, other than to” specified
individuals under conditions not relevant here. 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(1) (emphasis
added). CCPS explains that the redacted information includes “confidential student
information.” The Office has previously affirmed the withholding of videos and
photographs of students that would reveal those students’ identities as “education
records” exempt under FERPA. See, e.g., 24-ORD-196; 22-ORD-273; 99-ORD-217.
Here, the Office’s review of the communications confirms they include photographsof students. As such, they constitute education records and are exempt under FERPA.
Accordingly, the CCPS did not violate the Act when it did not produce them.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.
Russell Coleman
Attorney General
/s/ Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General
#027
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
4
The Appellant argues that CCPS should not be allowed to redact the records under the cited
exemptions because they previously produced similar records without redaction. However, nothing in
the Act renders an exemption permanently waived because it was not raised in response to a prior
request. Moreover, the Office notes that it has previously upheld CCPS’s denial of similar requests
from the Appellant that relied on the same exemptions. See, e.g., 22-ORD-144.