25-ORD-085
March 31, 2025
In re: Jamie Fain/Grant County School District
Summary: The Grant County School District (“the District”) violated
the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it failed to cite the specific
exception authorizing its denial of the request. The District did not
violate the Act when it denied a request seeking information without
describing any public records to be inspected.
Open Records Decision
Jamie Fain (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the District seeking “the grade
point average” for two District teachers. In response, the District stated it is “unable
to provide [her] with [her] request as it is protected information.” This appeal
followed.
Upon receiving a request for records under the Act, a public agency “shall
determine within five (5) [business] days . . . after the receipt of any such request
whether to comply with the request and shall notify in writing the person making the
request, within the five (5) day period, of its decision.” KRS 61.880(1). If an agency
denies in whole or in part the inspection of any record, its response must include “a
statement of the specific exception authorizing the withholding of the record and a
brief explanation of how the exception applies to the record withheld.” Id.
Here, the District’s original response stated only that the Appellant’s request
sought “protected information.” That response did not identify the specific statutory
exemption authorizing the denial of the request. On appeal, the District now explains
that it did not interpret the Appellant’s request as one submitted under the Act.
However, the subject line of the Appellant’s email identified it as a request under the
Act. Accordingly, the District violated the Act when it failed to cite the specific
exception authorizing its denial of the request.On appeal, the District asserts that the Appellant has not requested records.
Rather, the Appellant submitted a “request for information.” The Appellant’s request
asks for “the grade point average” of two District instructors. The District is correct
that this request did not describe public records to be inspected, but rather, sought
information. See, e.g., 23-ORD-257 (denying a request for “the full names” of
correctional officers on duty at a specific time); 22-ORD-054 (denying a request asking
“who ordered” a letter to be written, how much the author was paid, and “why” the
letter “was circulated”). The Act does not require public agencies to answer
interrogatories or fulfill requests for information. Rather, it only requires public
agencies to produce public records for inspection. See KRS 61.872(2)(a) (requiring a
request to inspect records to include, inter alia, a description of “the records to be
inspected”); Dep’t of Revenue v. Eifler, 436 S.W.3d 530, 534 (Ky. App. 2013) (“The [Act]
does not dictate that public agencies must gather and supply information not
regularly kept as part of its records.”). Accordingly, the District did not violate the
Act when it denied the Appellant’s request because it did not describe any public
records to be inspected.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
Because the Appellant’s request was properly denied as a request for information, the Office need
not address the District’s alternative arguments under KRS 61.872(2) and the Family Education
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g.#093
Distributed to:
Jami Fain
Todd Moody, Superintendent