Latest news with #KentuckyOpenRecordsAct
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Secrecy sets the pace when it comes to this Beshear's Kentucky Derby guest list
Guests at Gov. Andy Beshear's Derby eve event mingle in the courtyard of the Old Governor's Mansion in Frankfort, May 2, 2025. (Kentucky Lantern photo by Tom Loftus) FRANKFORT, Ky. — Again this year, Gov. Andy Beshear has refused to identify friends and political supporters who buy prime tickets to the Kentucky Derby made available by Churchill Downs for the governor's entourage. The governor's office responded to an Open Records Act request from the Lantern with a letter saying it has no records of who got the tickets or who was invited to Beshear's black-tie Derby eve party at the Old Governor's Mansion in Frankfort. The office referred questions about the tickets and the party to a nonprofit corporation Beshear created at the outset of his administration to act as broker for his Derby tickets and manage the party. But the nonprofit, First Saturday in May Inc., is not covered by the Kentucky Open Records Act. And as it did last year, First Saturday refused the Lantern's request to review details of its income and spending. It ignored the Lantern's questions asking how many tickets it bought this year, the cost of the tickets and to whom the tickets were sold. First Saturday did, however, release a copy of its most recent (2023-24) tax return, which it is required by law to do. The tax return reveals only basic financial information — $990,000 in income that year and $965,000 in expenses. First Saturday reported in that tax return that it is a 501(c)(4) charitable organization whose mission is 'to organize and manage events for the promotion of economic development in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.' The nonprofit released a brief statement to the Lantern which noted its role in hosting the state's 'economic development and tourism guests at the Kentucky Derby.' But the statement also acknowledged, 'Additional tickets to the Kentucky Oaks and Kentucky Derby were privately purchased from Churchill Downs by the First Saturday in May at no expense to the Commonwealth.' This is the only hint from First Saturday of the substantial payments it has received in recent years from Democratic Party groups — particularly the Democratic Governors Association, or DGA. The 2025 Kentucky Derby was run as Beshear explores a campaign for president in 2028. Beshear's national profile was enhanced in December when his fellow Democratic governors elected him vice chair of the DGA and as chair-elect for 2026. The DGA used the events of Beshear's Derby weekend — including the private formal party on Derby Eve — as a fundraiser this year. And disclosures filed by the association with the Internal Revenue Service show that it has maintained a close relationship with First Saturday in May since Beshear first became governor. The IRS calls 501(c)(4) groups 'social welfare organizations' which are permitted to participate in some political activity as long as politics isn't their primary purpose. The Democratic Governors Association did not respond to numerous phone messages and emails from the Lantern. For its part, Churchill Downs refused to answer questions from the Lantern. Last year the Lantern reported that Beshear broke from the practice of his four immediate predecessors — including his father Steve Beshear, governor from 2007-15 — by refusing to release lists of those who bought Derby tickets from the allotment set aside by Churchill Downs for the governor. Several news reports dating back to 1999 published lists released by those governors of the people who bought their tickets from a large allotment set aside by Churchill Downs for purchase at face value by the governor's guests. The practice was to release lists of actual buyers of the tickets to reporters after the Derby, when the records were no longer considered preliminary. According to those news reports, each year a small portion of those tickets were bought by state government to host official guests — job creators and tourism promoters. Most tickets were bought by political donors, lobbyists, administration officials and friends. That is apparently the case this year. The 'spending search' function on state government's 'Transparency' website shows that the state has paid First Saturday $106,291 so far this year — apparently for the cost of tickets and related expenses for the official guests. But the number of such official guests — job creators and tourism promoters from out of state — is not large. The Beshear administration has said 40 such guests were entertained at the 2024 Derby. The past news articles reported that Churchill sold as many as 553 Derby tickets to the governor's group while Democrat Paul Patton was governor in 1999, and as few as 237 in 2016 under Republican Matt Bevin. Critics quoted in those articles questioned the propriety of Churchill — an entity closely regulated by the state and a massive political donor — making so many tickets available to the governor — far more tickets than needed for the official state guests. The ability to buy a prime Derby ticket at face value is a rare opportunity. Demand exceeds supply and many Derby fans must go online to the secondary market to buy tickets at high prices set by sellers. Norman Ornstein, an authority on ethics in government and emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, told the Lantern last year that he was not so bothered by this potential conflict of interest. 'My only question now would be: Why are you not letting us know what other governors have let us know?' Ornstein said. One conclusion that can be drawn from available public records about First Saturday in May is that from its creation it has had a close relationship with the Democratic Governors Association. The DGA and its affiliated nonprofit group are required to file finance reports with the Internal Revenue Service. Those reports show that since First Saturday in May was created in 2019 through the end of 2024 the DGA has paid it $491,000. (The specific payments were: $105,000 in January 2022; $172,200 in February 2023; $37,300 in April 2023; $26,500 in March 2024. Also, a DGA affiliated non-profit named America Works USA reported that it made a $150,000 grant to First Saturday in early 2020.) The DGA is not required to disclose its receipts and spending for the first half of 2025 until July. The Lexington Herald-Leader reported in April that the DGA used Derby weekend as a fundraising opportunity. An invitation obtained by the Lexington Herald-Leader said that for a $15,000 donation ($25,000 for two people) a guest would get a ticket to the Oaks, the Derby and the Beshears' gala at the Old Governor's Mansion. The gala was not exclusively for the DGA donors and the state's economic development guests. Beshear Communications Director Crystal Staley said, 'Many different people from a variety of groups attend the gala.' The DGA's fundraiser invitation offered the opportunity for donors to not only party with Beshear, but also three other Democratic governors: The 2024 Democratic nominee for vice president Tim Walz of Minnesota, Maura Healey of Massachusetts and Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico. Last year a DGA spokesperson told the Lantern that the DGA has hosted events in Kentucky on Derby weekend for many years. Besides the DGA, other political groups have made payments to First Saturday. The Kentucky Democratic Party has reported to the FEC that it has paid a total of $99,370 since May of 2022 to First Saturday. And the Democratic Attorneys General Association has disclosed to the IRS that it has paid First Saturday $24,400. First Saturday in May Inc. was formed by Beshear soon after his first inauguration in December 2019. It was not a unique idea; governors going back to Paul Patton had created similar nonprofits to handle expenses of their Derby activities. Records of Kentucky's secretary of state show that in mid-February this year, the leadership of the nonprofit changed. Lindy Karns, Beshear's CPA who also has served as treasurer of his campaign committees, is no longer treasurer and contact person for First Saturday. Jack Dulworth, a Louisville businessman and longtime Beshear supporter, moved from the president's job to vice president. The new president is Jonathan Smith, who has worked closely with Beshear since Beshear's 2015 campaign for attorney general. (Officers of First Saturday receive no salaries, according to the organization's tax returns.) Smith resigned last year as deputy chief of staff in the governor's office. At the time of his resignation, the Herald-Leader reported that Smith 'is seen by many political insiders as a liaison between Beshear and others in the political world.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Kentucky House Bill 520 is not good for police transparency l Strictly Legal
On two separate occasions in recent years, the Kentucky Supreme Court has applied the Kentucky Open Records Act according to its terms. In doing so, it refused to allow two local police agencies to impose a blanket "investigation" exception to the requirement that police produce records related to an arrest. But at the end of March, the Kentucky Legislature passed a law that effectively overrules those decisions. The result will be less transparency around police activities in the commonwealth. Until March 27 of this year, Kentucky police departments could withhold investigatory records only if "the disclosure of the information would harm the agency by. . . premature release of information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action[.]" In two separate Kentucky Supreme Court cases, Fort Thomas and Shively police departments attempted to invoke the exception, submitting affidavits attesting that release of the records would harm the agency. But in both cases, the police couldn't provide any facts to back up their assertions that they'd be harmed by the disclosure. Accordingly, the court ruled against the police departments each time. To the extent these rulings put police departments in a quandary, the simple solution would be for those departments to provide actual evidence of harm or simply not assert the exception so cavalierly. It doesn't appear that any harm came to Fort Thomas or Shively from releasing the records. But that's not what happened. Instead of insisting that local police departments get their own houses in order, Rep. Chris Fugate sponsored House Bill 520. Fugate spent 22 years with the Kentucky State Police, and according to the Louisville Courier Journal, was not even familiar with the court's decision in Shively. Fugate's bill, which was adopted without the governor's signature, changed the wording of the Kentucky Open Records Act so that it now reads: "Records of law enforcement agencies or agencies. . . [are exempt] if the disclosure of the information could pose an articulable risk of harm to the agency or its investigation by revealing the identity of informants or witnesses not otherwise known or by premature release of information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action or administrative adjudication." So now, rather than proving actual harm from the release of records, the police merely need to articulate a risk that could harm the department. That is a momentous change. It would be hard for me to prove that I am going to be in a car accident on my way home from work. I've worked in downtown Cincinnati for 43 years, and I have never been in a car accident on my commute. But could I "articulate" a risk that I could be in a car accident? Sure. Anything is possible. And that's the difference between "would" and "could." "Would" requires actual evidence. "Could" requires a vivid imagination. House Bill 520 makes it easy, too easy, for Kentucky Police Departments to evade the spirit if not the letter of the Kentucky Open Records law. March 27 was not a good day for transparency in the commonwealth. Jack Greiner is a partner at Faruki PLL law firm in Cincinnati. He represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues. This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: House Bill 520 is not good for police transparency | Strictly Legal
Yahoo
15-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
KY Senate approves bill to weaken open records law for police, other public agencies
The Kentucky Senate on Friday easily passed a bill to make it easier for police departments to withhold law enforcement records from the public under the Kentucky Open Records Act. The bill returned to the House, which must concur with the Senate's actions and give it final passage. House Bill 520 makes crucial changes to the state's open records law by lowering the government's burden of proof when it wants to withhold crime incident reports, 911 tapes, investigative files and other related documents. Instead of having to provide specific evidence of how releasing a record to the public would imperil an ongoing investigation, as is currently required, police only would have to say that disclosure could 'pose an articulable risk of harm' to them or their pending casework. 'This change makes the burden more reasonable for law enforcement agencies to comply with and protects public safety by ensuring that protected information related to investigations is not prematurely released while law enforcement actions and investigations are ongoing,' said state Sen. Danny Carroll, a former assistant police chief in Paducah, arguing for the bill on the Senate floor. Apart from local and state police, the bill also covers records held by public agencies that conduct administrative investigations into alleged wrongdoing, such as the state's inspectors general and regulatory and licensing boards. Before the Senate floor vote, Carroll, R-Paducah, withdrew a Senate committee substitute, adopted on Thursday, that contained even broader language. The substitute would have allowed police to withhold records if they were willing to say that disclosure 'could pose a risk of harm.' That version barely survived the Senate committee vote. The Senate voted 25-to-12 in favor of the bill, with most of the chamber's Democratic minority joined by several libertarian-leaning Republicans who appeared wary of promoting government secrecy. 'It looks like a really simple change — it's changing a 'would' to a 'could,'' said state Sen. Lindsey Tichenor, R-Smithfield, explaining her opposition to the bill. 'But 'could' is very subjective,' Tichenor said. 'And making such a significant yet minor change really changes our Open Records Act, which potentially closes off transparency. This 'would' has been in place for 49 years and has served its purpose well.' Kentuckians have a legitimate right to know what's happening with criminal cases, especially if they're the ones who were personally affected, Tichenor said. Advocates of open government protested Friday that the bill is an attack on years of court rulings in open records appeals in which police have been told either to release records to the public or be more specific in explaining why requested records should be withheld. Most recently, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled last year for the Courier Journal in its fight for 911 tapes and other records related to a deadly high-speed car crash involving police in the city of Shively in Jefferson County. Unable to prevail at the courthouse, police have asked the General Assembly to rewrite the open records law in their favor, said Amye Bensenhaver, a former assistant attorney general and co-founder of the Kentucky Open Government Coalition. 'It was, and still is, so clearly a legislative reversal of the Shively opinion and a decade plus of thoughtful judicial analysis. It has the attorney general's fingerprints all over it, and is obviously driven by law enforcement,' Bensenhaver told the Herald-Leader. 'In my view, the proposed Senate bar for justifying denial is the lowest ever: an agency statement 'that the disclosure of the information could pose a risk of harm to the agency or its investigation,'' Bensenhaver said. 'We are so screwed if this passes.' The bill is publicly endorsed by the Kentucky League of Cities, the Kentucky Police Chiefs Association and the Kentucky Sheriffs Association. A note prepared for and attached to the bill by legislative staffers suggests that by making it easier to deny requests, the bill likely would 'reduce the administrative burden on local law enforcement agencies by limiting the volume of records they must review and redact before responding to open records requests.'
Yahoo
14-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Legislation would make it easier for police to withhold records, say open government advocates
Rep. Chris Fugate, R-Chavies, said a committee substitute for the original bill would protect police officers and agencies from providing records that could compromise an active investigation. (LRC Public Information) FRANKFORT — Open government advocates warn a late-changing bill could make it easier for law enforcement agencies to withhold records via an exemption that they say agencies have misused in the past. Under the Kentucky Open Records Act, police agencies or those involved in 'administrative adjudication' can withhold records if 'premature release of information' would harm an investigation or informants. A Kentucky Supreme Court decision last year found that the Shively police department in Jefferson County had erroneously used the exemption to withhold from the Louisville Courier-Journal investigatory records involving a fatal car crash. The police department, the state's highest court found, made no effort to explain in its records denial letter how the public inspection of investigatory records related to the crash 'would harm the agency's investigative or prosecutorial efforts.' 'This provision has been misused for decades,' said Michael Abate, a media law and First Amendment expert who serves as general counsel for the Kentucky Press Association. Abate said law enforcement agencies had regularly exploited that exemption to wrongfully withhold law enforcement records. The Supreme Court decision, he said, made clear that agencies had to specifically articulate how the open records exemption applies to a case. 'No one is saying you can't withhold sensitive investigative material. You just have to explain why, in generic terms, why it would harm an investigation,' Abate told the Lantern. But a Kentucky bill that has been changed through a legislative maneuver late in this year's session has Abate and another open government advocates deeply concerned it could create a 'categorical exemption for investigative records' just months after the court ruling. House Bill 520, sponsored by Rep. Chris Fugate R-Chavies, was changed Thursday morning through a committee substitute in the Senate State and Local Government Committee and advanced only after a Republican senator changed his 'no' vote to 'continue the conversation' on the bill. Fugate, a former Kentucky State Police trooper, told lawmakers his bill, by changing the language of the open records exemption, would protect police officers and agencies from providing records that could compromise an active investigation. 'It protects the investigation, it protects witnesses, it protects confidential informants, and it also protects the life of the police officers when investigations are compromised,' Fugate said. Fugate, speaking alongside the executive directors for the Kentucky League of Cities and the Kentucky Association of Chiefs of Police, said he cared about transparency but that witnesses needed to be protected in investigations involving murder, sexual abuse and drugs. Instead of requiring agencies to certify that records disclosure 'would harm' an agency, the amended version of HB 520 allows agencies to withhold records if disclosure 'could pose a risk of harm to the agency or its investigation.' Amye Bensenhaver, the co-director of the Kentucky Open Government Coalition and a former deputy attorney general specializing in open government laws, said that language change — from 'would harm' to 'could pose a risk of harm' — would make it much easier for law enforcement to justify withholding records. In the past, before the Supreme Court decision, agencies routinely withheld records by saying that investigations were perpetually 'pending' and 'open.' 'The main thing this does is essentially establish a very diluted standard for establishing harm to withhold public records in an ongoing investigation,' Bensenhaver said. 'It's gone from a really pretty rigorous standard — which was the ability to articulate a concrete risk of actual harm, that's a pretty high standard — to this very nebulous standard.' The bill also adds a reference to the open records exception in another part of state statutes related to the disclosure of 'intelligence and investigative reports' once an investigation is completed. The Louisville Courier-Journal reported when the Shively Police Department tried to argue in court that those state statutes also allowed them to withhold records, the Supreme Court ruled those statutes, KRS 17.150(2), had 'no bearing on whether public records can be disclosed before a criminal prosecution is completed or a determination not to prosecute has been made.' Abate said the reference in HB 520 to KRS 17.150(2) is 'seemingly an attempt to create a backdoor way to withhold entire investigation files.' He said it's not entirely clear what the purpose of the reference is in the bill because 'they sprung this on us' through a committee substitute. 'It would be a really terrible change that would harm transparency in a meaningful way,' Abate said. Senators on the State and Local Government committee on both sides of the aisle were skeptical of the revamped bill, and HB 520 nearly failed to advance out of the committee. A few Republican senators expressed hesitation about the proposed rewording of the open records law, grappling with the stated desire by proponents to protect police investigations but also maintain government transparency. 'I do understand the need to protect your investigation…I still struggle with the word 'could,' in that that seems too broad to me,' said Sen. Greg Elkins, R-Winchester. Sen. Cassie Chambers Armstrong, D-Louisville, a University of Louisville law professor, echoed a concern Abate has about the bill — that it could shift the power of who gets to ultimately decide whether an open records exemption applies in a case to law enforcement agencies, not the courts. Generally, if records are denied under the Open Records Act, those denials can be appealed to a local circuit court or the Kentucky Attorney General. 'If someone makes a request for records related to an investigation and law enforcement says this would harm our investigation, there are processes for a court to review those records,' Armstrong said. 'Help me understand how this doesn't let law enforcement or agencies enforce the Open Records Act.' J.D. Chaney, the executive director for the Kentucky League of Cities, responded to Armstrong by saying there would still be an appellate process available to those who feel they've been erroneously denied records. The bill had initially failed to pass the committee after Sen. Lindsey Tichenor, R-Smithfield and Sen. Steve Rawlings, R-Burlington joined two Democrats on the committee in opposing the bill. Elkins initially voted against but changed his vote to 'continue the conversation' about the bill. Sen. Chris McDaniel, R-Ryland Heights, voted in favor of the bill, citing the difficult investigations and circumstances law enforcement can deal with during sensitive investigations. 'Sometimes the people that you deal with are far more of a danger to the overall administration of justice in our society than is the delay in the release of the records,' McDaniel said. 'We're talking about a space that gets very dangerous very quickly for victims, for law enforcement officers.' Fugate on Thursday declined to comment to the Lantern about the changes made to HB 520, saying the bill could potentially change again. The bill could be voted on by the Senate on Friday and sent to the House of Representatives to either concur or reject changes made in the Senate committee. Senate President Pro Tem David Givens, R-Greensburg, told reporters Thursday afternoon senators would be discussing HB 520 among other bills still needing final passage. 'I'm aware that the vote in that committee was rather close on the legislation, but House Bill 520 did make it out,' Givens said.
Yahoo
05-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Kentucky bill that could limit public access to law enforcement records speeding through legislature
A bill critics have warned could allow law enforcement to withhold records from Kentucky Open Records Act requests without proving how their release would harm investigations cleared the House with ease on Tuesday afternoon in a 78-21 vote. It now moves on to the Senate. Kentucky House Bill 520 would strike one word and add a handful more to the commonwealth's open records law. But if enacted, critics argue, those tweaks in HB 520 would fly in the face of a Kentucky Supreme Court ruling last year and allow law enforcement agencies to arbitrarily withhold some records by not having to show how disclosure would harm an investigation or prosecution. Law enforcement agencies currently do not have to turn over records 'if the disclosure of the information would harm the agency by revealing the identity of informants not otherwise known or by premature release of information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action or administrative adjudication.' But HB 520, introduced by five Republican lawmakers, strikes the word 'would' in the law, replacing it with 'could pose an articulable risk' of harm. Amye Bensenhaver, a former assistant attorney general who is the co-founder of the Kentucky Open Government Coalition, said the change from "would" to "could" would allow law enforcement agencies to skirt the open records law by citing speculative harm to investigations. 'Under current law, and under 'Shively,' you have to prove that there's a risk of concrete harm. Not hypothetical, not speculative,' she told The Courier Journal last month. Kentucky law enforcement agencies, including the Louisville Metro Police Department, have routinely withheld records using boilerplate language citing open investigations. However, in a landmark ruling last year, the Kentucky Supreme Court determined the Shively Police Department violated the open records law by withholding records related to a fatal police chase and citing the potential risk to their ongoing investigation when The Courier Journal requested them. While Shively Police cited the open investigation exemption, the Supreme Court found they failed to describe how the disclosure of documents would harm the investigation. At the time of the ruling, Michael Abate, a First Amendment lawyer representing The Courier Journal in the case, called it a 'watershed' moment. 'It makes clear that agencies can't just say 'you don't get information because we're still investigating it' or 'there's some court case that is pending.' They have to do what the open records act says,' he said. More: 'Watershed' decision: Kentucky Supreme Court says Shively Police violated open records act The bill's main sponsor is Rep. Chris-Fugate, R-Chavies, who spent 22 years with the Kentucky State Police. He said the intent of his legislation is to protect those involved with active cases, as well as the success of an investigation. 'In the drug world, when I was doing drug investigations, it could get a police officer killed or a confidential witness killed if they're not aware that their names have been given out,' he told The Courier Journal last month. 'That's all I'm trying to do — just protect the people that I worked with and that I worked for.' Drug cases are so sensitive and dangerous, he added, that when he worked them, he would not discuss their details with colleagues unless they were part of the investigation. 'It was all confidential because it's too dangerous of a world and a job for everybody to know what's going on as far as investigations,' he said. Fugate said he is fine with disclosing records after a case is over, and that law enforcement agencies must still explain the risk that handing over records would pose. Speaking to The Courier January in February, before the legislation received a hearing, Fugate said he was not familiar with the "Shively Police Department v. Courier Journal" Supreme Court decision. Like Fugate, three of the bill's other four sponsors have law enforcement backgrounds. On Tuesday, there was little discussion on the House floor about HB 520, save for Rep. Tina Bojanowski, D-Louisville, asking Fugate how the bill could impact confidential informants. In response, Fugate said when he was doing drug investigations, "an open records request would have hindered my investigation, and it would have put the life of the confidential informant, or undercover police officer, in jeopardy because of the open records that would have been released." Following the vote, Rep. Anne Donworth, D-Lexington, said she voted against the bill because of the "perception from the public that they might not be able to get access to law enforcement records." She added that there were already law enforcement exemptions from the open records law. "I don't believe this bill is necessary," she said. HB 520 similarly coasted through the State Government Committee in just minutes last week, receiving only two 'no' votes and one abstention. Nobody testified against the bill in its committee hearing. Bensenhaver, the Kentucky Open Government Coalition co-founder, later wrote she was unable to speak against the bill after experiencing a 'freakish medical emergency' at the statehouse. After watching video of the committee hearing, she said the coalition's concerns about the bill 'are greater than ever.' And in a statement ahead of Tuesday's vote, Bensenhaver's Kentucky Open Government Coalition said: "In a word, HB 520 creates a laxer, looser, and less onerous standard for denying the public access to records in an open case." The Kentucky Press Association, which represents newspapers across the commonwealth, also did not testify against the bill last week. However, in a Feb. 14 blog post, KPA President David Thompson said the organization had "concerns" about the bill and said it is "meant to overturn the Supreme Court's" ruling last year. Meanwhile, the ACLU of Kentucky said they oppose HB 520, calling it an "open records loophole for law enforcement." More: 1 dead after response from Louisville Metro Police's SWAT team in Shawnee neighborhood Tuesday Reach reporter Josh Wood at jwood@ or on X, formerly known as Twitter, at @JWoodJourno. This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: Kentucky public records bill would affect law enforcement records
