Your Right to Know: Open Records and Statutory Enforcement Explained

Image Courtesy of the Commonwealth of Kentucky (C) 2025 All Rights Reserved

Frankfort, KY (SPA)—Two legal disputes involving the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources are unfolding at the same time, each touching on broader questions of transparency, statutory interpretation, and public accountability.

One case, now before the Kentucky Supreme Court, centers on a core open-government issue: whether public officials can avoid disclosure requirements by conducting public business on personal devices or through private accounts. Lower courts have ruled that under Kentucky’s Open Records Act, what matters is how a record is used—not where it is stored. The Supreme Court’s decision will determine whether that interpretation stands statewide.

The Supreme Court case, in particular, carries implications well beyond Fish and Wildlife. Its outcome may influence how public agencies across the Commonwealth respond to open records requests—especially when records are spread across multiple systems, agencies, or communication platforms.

These developments highlight a broader moment of legal clarification. The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected to help define how Kentucky’s open government laws apply in an era when public business is no longer confined to a single office, inbox, or filing cabinet.

The other case involves the eligibility of the KY Fish and Wildlife board chair. For more on that story visit the Kentucky Lantern: Kentucky attorney general's office demands resignation of fish and wildlife board chair  

Why This Matters Locally

Although there are two separate issues of interest involving the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources that are unfolding, the focus here is the open records question, and it affects every government body and every resident of Kentucky. Taxpayers are expected to know what records they may lawfully request, just as public officials are obligated to understand what records they must produce. How the Kentucky Supreme Court resolves this issue will help define those responsibilities. The relevance here is not theoretical: similar issues surfaced locally earlier this month in open records correspondence tied to requests for documentation related to a major 2025 event. Those disputes involved response timelines, the substitution of summaries for records, and whether agencies must produce records they use or rely upon but did not directly create.

While the case originates at the state-agency level, the legal questions before the Kentucky Supreme Court affect how open records laws are applied across all levels of government, including counties and cities.

Local agencies increasingly operate across multiple systems, shared platforms, and interagency partnerships. When records are spread across departments, managed by outside entities, stored on questionable devices, or summarized rather than released in their original form, disagreements can arise over what must be disclosed and when.

The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to clarify whether public agencies’ disclosure obligations are determined by how records are used in public decision-making, rather than where they are stored or who originally created them. That clarification could directly shape how local governments handle future open records requests.

For residents, the outcome will help define what transparency looks like in practice—from records tied to boards and committees to documentation generated during high-impact events, when public trust, clear communication, and accountability matter most.

Who Decides What the Public Gets to See? A Taxpayer Q&A