Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves optional residency verification for open-records requests after debate over privacy and staffing burdens
Summary
Representative Patrick Flannery's committee substitute for HB 567 lets agencies optionally require proof of Kentucky residency before processing open-records requests; proponents said AI-generated requests are overwhelming agencies while opponents warned of privacy risks and burdens on legitimate requesters. The committee advanced the bill, 8–1, and adopted a title amendment.
Representative Patrick Flannery presented the committee substitute to House Bill 567, saying it gives public agencies an optional, statutory tool to verify the residency requirement already in the Kentucky Open Records Act.
"This bill provides a reasonable and optional tool for agencies to apply the existing residency requirement," Flannery said, describing acceptable proof such as a government-issued photo ID or other documentation demonstrating Kentucky residency and noting that agencies choosing to require proof must accept it in the same form the records request was submitted.
Local law-enforcement representatives described operational strain from increased request volume. Jeremy Thompson, chief at the Elizabethtown Police Department, told the committee his agency hired two records clerks to keep up with requests and said, "Most of them that we're seeing now are AI generated...it's just continual day after day after day," which he said delays legitimate Kentucky requesters.
Adrienne Southworth, a public-commenter who said she has worked on open-records law, urged caution. She warned the option to require photo ID could force requesters to transmit sensitive identification over nonsecure channels and could curtail longstanding rights to anonymous requests. "The concept of multifactor authentication doesn't have to be your personally identifiable information," she said, and urged technical fixes that avoid burdening legitimate users.
The substitute clarifies that proof of residency documents must remain confidential and notes that foreign businesses with a physical presence in Kentucky would qualify as residents for purposes of the law; it also narrows who counts as an individual acting on behalf of another for purposes of the residency requirement, language that participants said responds to concerns about automated or third-party requests.
Following questions from committee members about timing and burden for agencies, and an explanation of privacy language added by the League of Cities, the committee adopted the committee substitute and a title amendment. The roll call showed the bill advancing 8–1; the committee recorded adoption of the title amendment and moved the bill forward.
What happens next: HB 567 was advanced out of committee with a committee substitute and title amendment. Supporters said agencies will have the option — not the requirement — to verify residency; critics asked for technical, privacy-preserving solutions to address automated request volumes.
