Kentucky legislator behind Open Records Act overhaul says he’s paring down his bill

After outcry from transparency advocates against parts of his bill re-shaping the definition of a “public record” in Kentucky, Rep. John Hodgson, R-Fisherville, said he’s making big changes to the measure.

Hodgson told the Herald-Leader Friday a new version of his House Bill 509 would “not touch” the current definition of public records, which all Kentuckians can attain via an open records request. The law has been in place since 1976.

He made the change after constituent concerns had been raised and conversations with “some very well-informed citizens,” he said.

“These were ordinary people that have a lot of personal experience doing open records requests, and they were able to show me how it could be detrimental to them. They convinced me. That’s the way the process is supposed to work,” Hodgson said.

He added he will make the changes to the bill early next week.

As introduced, the bill would have greatly narrowed the definition of what would be accessible to Kentuckians via open records requests to only include documentation that gives “notice to a person outside the public agency of a transaction or final action.”

Hodgson said that the new version of the bill will focus more strictly on mandating that agencies provide employees and members with state-sponsored email addresses on which they must conduct public business.

Amye Bensenhaver, a former deputy attorney general specializing in the Kentucky Open Records Act and current co-director of the Kentucky Open Government Coalition, celebrated the news.

She was a strong critic of the initial bill’s language, but expressed neutrality on the provision explicitly requiring all agency employees and members to conduct public business on state-sponsored email addresses on which they must conduct public business.

“In order to fully satisfy the goal of ensuring that the open records rights that currently exist under the open records law are not abridged, he will have to remove all sections pertaining to redefining public records. Leave the (other provisions) in there, and I think everybody will be more or less happy,” Bensenhaver said.

If the section of the bill redefining what a public record is isn’t removed, Bensenhaver said there “may still be a problem.”

She mentioned “some very welcomed and much needed voices from right-leaning individuals and groups,” helped spur the change. Bensenhaver said that’s proof that transparency in government can come from all political sides.

“This is not about Democrat, not about Republican – this is about good government.”

This story was originally published February 16, 2024 at 2:49 PM.

Austin Horn

Lexington Herald-Leader

706-571-8597

Austin Horn is a politics reporter for the Lexington Herald-Leader. He previously worked for the Frankfort State Journal and National Public Radio. Horn has roots in both Woodford and Martin Counties.