Kentucky's Attorney General has sided with the state Personnel Cabinet in an open records dispute, concluding the agency did not violate the Open Records Act by withholding preliminary staff communications regarding locality premiums for IT positions, according to a decision released July 15.

In the decision on case 26-ORD-318, the AG's Open Records and Meetings office ruled that Jimmy Shaw failed to establish that the Cabinet possesses additional records beyond what it already provided. Shaw had submitted a 10-part request on April 27 seeking various records related to locality premium reviews for positions including Network Engineer and other IT classifications.

Locality premiums are supplemental pay amounts that the Personnel Cabinet secretary can authorize for job classifications facing demonstrated recruitment and retention issues.

The Cabinet explained that its IT job classification reviews do not produce detailed documentation. According to the Cabinet's account, staff members use online salary comparison resources to evaluate pay competitiveness, with no documents created during the analysis phase. Instead, preliminary recommendations are communicated directly to requesting agencies via conversation or email. The only formal record maintained is the completed Request for Locality Premium form, which the Cabinet said it had already provided to Shaw.

The Attorney General determined Shaw provided "bare assertions" that additional records should exist without sufficient factual support. Under Kentucky law, once an agency states a record does not exist, the burden shifts to the requester to demonstrate through statute, regulation, or factual evidence that the record actually exists. Shaw failed to meet that standard for most parts of his request, the decision states.

Regarding correspondence the Cabinet did withhold, the AG upheld the agency's reliance on exemptions for preliminary drafts and notes under the Open Records Act. The decision notes that preliminary emails and staff notes exchanged during the development process remain exempt even after a final decision is made, to protect the candid discussion necessary for government decision-making.