MORE ON OPEN RECORDS AND ANONYMOUS DONOR

The issue of the “anonymous donor” to Oldham County came up once again at he March 2, 2010 meeting of the Oldham County Fiscal Court. Once again Duane Murner demonstrated that he does not understand the law. Or, perhaps he wants to mislead the people of Oldham County. Does he really believe that the people of Oldham County are stupid and ignorant? The people of Oldham County should be appalled that he tries to mislead them.

Murner once again stated that he was willing to accept the “consequences” of refusing to obey a court order in the case of George Rawlings. He said that he was saved from that fate when George Rawlings decided to publicly identify himself as the anonymous donor to Oldham County.

The time has come to clarify the issue of the identity of the anonymous donor to Oldham County. Although George Rawlings has stated that he was the donor and he DID sign the check that was received by the county, the fact is that he was NOT the donor. The donor was the Rawlings Foundation. The Rawlings Foundation is a 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt foundation.(Click here for Foundation information) There has never been any evidence produced that George Rawlings did, or did not, contribute any money to that foundation. The by-laws of the foundation allow it to collect money from many sources, including employees. Before Judge Murner nominates George Rawlings for sainthood he needs to be sure who should be given such status. To view a copy of the actual check written by the foundation click here.

Now the grand finale, in Fiscal Court on March 16, 2010 Murner stated that George Rawlings and the Rawlings are indistinguishable. Can you believe that? I doubt that the Internal Revenue Service would view the two as indistinguishable and I doubt that anyone else would either. Murner was caught misleading the public and thought that he had to say something.

More on open records, Magistrate Scott Davis recently wanted to see some public records in the possession of county government. Instead of allowing him to view the records (he is a publicly elected official), Murner required him to file an Open Records Request any ordinary citizen would be required to do. In open fiscal court Magistrate Scott Davis questioned Murner as to the time that he was taking to produce the documents. Murner responded by stating the following: "The requirements for a request for open records is that you acknowledge receipt of the request for open records within three days …”

For the record, the following is a quote from the Kentucky Open Records law: “Under most circumstances, agencies must make public records available within three days.” What is difficult to understand about this? Further, in a decision of the Kentucky Attorney General dated January 9, 2008 (AG 09-ORD-004) the Attorney stated, “Although KRS 61.872(5) permits an agency to extend the three day deadline for response if the requested records are "in active use, in storage or not otherwise available," the statute does not permit an agency to extend the deadline while it secures the services of an attorney.” In another opinion (AG 96-ORD-168) the Attorney General stated, “We also find that any open records policy which impedes access to nonexempt public records by more than three working days violates provisions of the Act.” These quotes clearly state that it is the intent of the Open Records Act that the material must be available in three days in most situations.

Murner would like the public to believe that the law only requires that he acknowledge receipt of the request within three days. For a person with a Harvard degree he apparently does not read well. I can assure him that though most of the people in Oldham received their degrees from a college or university other than Harvard, or may not have a college education, they are smart enough to understand the language presented here. Thankfully, this county has less than a year left to endure his misleading statements.