The University of Louisville Foundation again
violated the Open Records Act by not explaining why access to records was
delayed.
Beshear’s office issued an opinion on Oct. 6, 2016, in the
appeal of In re: Kentucky Center for
Investigative Reporting/University of Louisville Foundation, 16-ORD-215.
Brendan McCarthy, managing editor with the Kentucky Center
for Investigative Reporting, requested records on June 16 from the foundation detailing certain disclosures from the foundation’s 2015 Annual Report.
On June 21, the foundation cited KRS 61.872(5) and
explained the records were in storage or active use and were being retrieved
and reviewed. It also noted it would contact McCarthy by July 6 with the
responsive records.
McCarthy appealed on July 22 after not hearing anything from the foundation, including a July 19 email to the Foundation
changing contact persons for that request.
The foundation responded to the appeal that a final response
was sent by letter on July 21, which was attached. The attached letter detailed
the various items requested by the Center with whether records existed and
several exemptions and citations to the Open Records Act.
Of the nine specific request six of them were found to have no
responsive records, while three did have records that would be made available to
the center.
Beshear found that neither the foundation’s initial
response nor the response to the appeal are specific enough under the Act, but
finds there was no substantive error in the ultimate conclusion of the request.
In further explanation, Beshear noted the foundation did not
give a detailed explanation for the cause of a further delay past the three-day
response period, noting the foundation even failed to meet its own deadline of
July 6.
Due to the foundation providing the existing responsive
records, there was no substantive violation of the Open Records Act.
No comments:
Post a Comment