25-ORD-136
May 23, 2025
In re: LaWanna Wallen Brock/Kentucky Board of Cosmetology
Summary: The Kentucky Board of Cosmetology (“the Board”) did not
violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it denied a request for
failure to state the manner in which the requester was a resident of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Open Records Decision
LaWanna Wallen Brock (“the Appellant”) made three requests to the Board for
copies of records, the third of which is at issue in this appeal. However, the two prior
requests are procedurally relevant as to the issue of the Appellant’s residency.
In her first request, submitted on April 28, 2025, the Appellant stated, “I affirm
that I am a resident of the Commonwealth.” Because the Appellant had various
pending legal proceedings against the Board at the time, in which she was
represented by counsel, the Board contacted the Appellant’s attorney on May 5, 2025,
to ask whether the Appellant could be contacted directly regarding the request. The
Board further indicated it intended to ask the Appellant “to provide a statement,
pursuant to KRS 61.872(2)(a), of the manner in which she is a resident of the
Commonwealth.” Later that day, the Appellant withdrew her request.1
On May 6, 2025, the Appellant submitted what she described as an expanded
and “improved” version of her original request. That request was apparently
contained in a Microsoft Word document attached to an email. In the email, the
Appellant described her pending litigation against the Board, stating, “As for proof of
residency, at all times relevant, I was employed in Kentucky and owned a business
there” (emphasis added). However, in pursuing this appeal, the Appellant has
provided only the email and not the attachment containing the request. “If a
1 In the email withdrawing her request, the Appellant included some remarks suggesting that she
believed all statutory residency requirements should be considered unconstitutional.complaining party wishes the Attorney General to review a public agency’s denial of
a request to inspect a public record, the complaining party shall forward to the
Attorney General a copy of the written request and a copy of the written response
denying inspection.” KRS 61.880(2)(a) (emphasis added). With regard to the May 6
request, the Office does not have jurisdiction because the Appellant did not perfect
her appeal. See 40 KAR 1:030 § 1 (“The Attorney General shall not consider a
complaint that fails to conform to . . . KRS 61.880(2), requiring the submission of a
written request to the public agency and the public agency’s written denial, if the
agency provided a denial.”).
Finally, on May 8, 2025, the Appellant submitted the request at issue here, in
which she sought various records related to the Board’s enforcement of Kentucky’s
cosmetology laws. This request did not contain a statement regarding the Appellant’s
residency; however, the Appellant included her postal address, which showed she
resided in Tennessee. In a timely response issued to the Appellant and her attorney,
the Board denied the May 6 and May 8 requests because, “[b]ased on the information
provided in the latest requests, at this time it does not seem like [the Appellant] is a
current resident of Kentucky.” This appeal followed.
Under KRS 61.872(2)(a), only a “resident of the Commonwealth shall have the
right to inspect public records.” When a person requests inspection of records, “[t]he
official custodian may require the applicant to provide a statement in the written
application of the manner in which the applicant is a resident of the Commonwealth
under KRS 61.870(10)(a) to (f).” KRS 61.872(2)(a). “Resident of the Commonwealth”
is defined as:
(a) An individual residing in the Commonwealth;
(b) A domestic business entity with a location in the Commonwealth;
(c)
A foreign business entity registered with the Secretary of State;
(d) An individual that is employed and works at a location or locations
within the Commonwealth;
(e)
An individual or business entity that owns real property within the
Commonwealth;
(f)
Any individual or business entity that has been authorized to act
on behalf of an individual or business entity defined in paragraphs
(a) to (e) of this subsection; or
(g) A news-gathering organization as defined in KRS 189.635(9)(b)1. a.
to e.
KRS 61.870(10). Here, the Appellant’s request did not include a statement of the
manner in which she is a resident of the Commonwealth. Although the Appellant
attempted to provide a statement of residency in her previous requests, a public
agency may require a residency statement in each request. See, e.g., 25-ORD-116.On appeal, the Appellant admits her “primary residence is in Cumberland Gap,
Tennessee.” But she claims she should be considered a resident of the Commonwealth
under KRS 61.870(10)(d) “because, at all times relevant to the civil claim” in a
pending action she has against the Board, she “was employed and worked at locations
within the Commonwealth of Kentucky.” She further asserts the Board has
“documentation of where [she] worked.” The Appellant does not claim, however, that
she still was employed at a location within the Commonwealth on the date of her
request. Because the Appellant did not provide a statement of the manner in which
she was a resident of the Commonwealth under KRS 61.870(10), and because she
apparently is no longer a resident of the Commonwealth, the Board did not violate
the Act when it denied the Appellant’s request.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an action in the
appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days
from the date of this decision. Pursuant to 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/ James M. Herrick
James M. Herrick
Assistant Attorney General
#205
Distributed to:
Ms. LaWanna Wallen Brock
Eden Davis Stephens, Esq.
Ms. Tanya Shrout