FRANKFORT – A ruling was made against the City of Salyersville in regards to Open Records laws this week.
A resident of the city, Brandy Lain, had submitted eight Open Records Requests to the City of Salyersville during the time period of December 25 and 30, 2025, seeking a wide range or records related to the City’s operations and management. On January 15, 2026, Lain initiated an appeal with the Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman’s office, claiming she had not received a response to seven of her requests and the City’s response to her eighth request violated the Open Records Act.
Under KRS 61.880(10), a public entity has five business days to respond in writing to an Open Records Request, either by supplying access to the records, granting a request and establishing a timeline the requestor will receive access to the records, or by denying the request with a sufficient reason (i.e. the records don’t exist or the records are not covered under the Open Records Act.
The Attorney General’s office ruled that they could not resolve the factual dispute regarding the timeliness of the City’s responses to requests for records. Lain had claimed that as of January 12 she had not received a response to seven of the requests, but the City had asserted to the AG’s office they had issued written responses to all of her requests, reportedly providing proof of the copies of the requests and their responses.
The AG order listed the following as descriptions of Lain’s eight responses in question in the appeal: “The eight requests are: (1) a request for City charter and ordinances related records dated December 25, 2025, 6:31 a.m.; (2) a request for sewage and water utility projects related records dated December 25, 2025, 10:03 p.m.; (3) a request for hiring & Personnel related records dated December 29, 2025, 8:26 p.m.; (4) a request for water works funding related records dated December 29, 2025, 8:39 p.m.; (5) a request for records related to water works billing dated December 29, 2025, 8:44 p.m.; (6) a request for records related to the expansion of the City’s boundaries dated December 29, 2025, 8:53 p.m.; (7) a request for salary information dated December 29, 2025, 11:43 p.m.; and (8) a request for maintenance, complaints, and repair records related to the City’s sewage system dated December 30, 2025, 1:11 a.m. The Appellant provided a response from the City dated January 2, 2026, related to her December 25, 2025, 10:03 p.m., request for records regarding the City’s sewage and water utility projects.”
In regards to Lain’s request for records relating to sewage and water projects, dated December 25, 2025 at 10:03 p.m., the City reportedly invoked the KRS 61.8772(5) to delay Lain’s access to the records, citing “the scope of the request, the number or record categories identified, the multiple departments and custodians potentially involved, and the impact of the Christmas holiday closure and reduced staffing,” as reasons for the City needing more time to search and respond with those records.
The AG ruled that the City’s response did not include a “detailed explanation,” as required by KRS 61.872(5), and closures for holidays or reduced staffing are not legitimate explanations for delays, inevitably ruling that the City violated the Open Records Act.
The City will have 30 days from the February 24 ruling to initiate action in circuit court if it disagrees with the AG’s ruling.
On February 25 the City of Salyersville provided another response to Lain, making many of the records available immediately and asking Lain to contact the office to schedule an appointment for inspection of the records still in the office, and setting a schedule of on or before March 6 for the complete production of the remaining records. The response also indicated that no records existed of the following:
Separate salary schedules or employee pay scales;
Separate adopted compensation details beyond payroll records;
Written personnel policies governing salaries or benefits;
Employment classification records in the format requested.
Open Records laws do not require the creation of new records, only of access to records that already exist.
Furthermore, Lain also issued a formal objection regarding the use of multimedia during last week’s city council meeting, in which a city employee played a TikTok of Lain’s on a laptop viewable by the audience. The City responded noting no records existed giving the employee approval to play the video and the employee played it on her own personal computer, not city-owned equipment. The actual video was not included in the City’s record of the meeting and they have no policies regarding playback of multimedia during a public meeting.
Lain’s objection included a notice of intent to pursue federal civil rights claims:
This notice is provided in good faith to afford the City an opportunity to:
1. Provide written clarification of the authority under which the Finance Director engaged in adversarial questioning;
2. Confirm that no retaliatory policy or practice exists;
3. Implement safeguards to prevent recurrence;
4. Confirm compliance with preservation obligations.
If this matter is not addressed appropriately, I am prepared to pursue all available remedies in federal court without further notice.
The SI will continue to follow these issues as they continue to unfold.
