25-ORD-144
June 4, 2025
In re: Jason O’Bannon/City of London
Summary: The City of London (“the City”) did not violate the Open
Records Act (“the Act”) when it stated that it does not possess records
responsive to the Appellant’s request and identified the agency in
possession of the requested records.
Open Records Decision
On April 16, 2025, Jason O’Bannon (“Appellant”) submitted to the City a
request for various “phone records” on six phones1 belonging to members of the
London City Council (“the Council”). The same day, the City stated it does not possess
records belonging to the Council. Rather it stated that those records belong to the
Council, and that the City was sharing the Appellant’s request with the Council.
Having received no further response by May 6, 2025, the Appellant initiated this
appeal.
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 the person
to whom the application is directed does not have custody or control of the public
record requested, that person shall notify the applicant and shall furnish the name
and location of the official custodian of the agency's public records.” KRS 61.872(4).
Here, the City responded the day it received the Appellant’s request, stating it
does not possess any responsive records. Rather, the City explains that the Council
has its own counsel and does not provide responsive records to the City’s records
custodian when the City receives requests for records belonging to the Council. In its
1
The Appellant identified the phones by phone number.original response and on appeal, the City identified the Council as the agency in
possession of responsive records and identified the Council’s records custodian. By
doing so, the City met its obligations under the Act. See KRS 61.872(4). Accordingly,
the City did not violate the Act.2
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
#196
Distributed to:
Jason O’Bannon
Katelin McPeek, London City Clerk
Larry Bryson, London City Attorney, City of London
Randall Weddle, London Mayor
2
When initiating his appeal, the Appellant provided only his request to the City and the City’s
response. By doing so, the Appellant properly initiated an appeal as to that request and response. See
KRS 61.880(2)(a). However, the Appellant also complains that the Council has not provided him with
responsive records after the City shared his request with the Council. Such circumstances did not
trigger the obligations of the Act with respect to the Council. See, e.g., 05-ORD-242 (“[A] misdirected
request that is forwarded to another agency need not be treated by the receiving agency as a proper
open records request to the receiving agency.”). Rather, if the Appellant wishes to request records from
the Council, he must first submit a new request directly to the Council.