The Attorney General’s Decision

By PJ Martin

Editor

The Herald-News

 

In the August 20^th edition of The Herald-News, we published the statement from the City of Edmonton concerning Open Records Requests and the allegations that those requests were not met by Jacob Chase Garmon, CEO of The Garmon Organization LLC.

On page 7 of that newspaper is the Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman’s appeal decision letter stating that case 25-ORD-214 was declined for reconsideration.

The initial complaint stated that the Kentucky Open Records requests were not met within the five-day time frame. A six-page document was presented to the city council members before the City Council meeting on February 3, 2025. Listed among its six pages were these seven open records requests.

1. City Council meeting minutes, agenda, and resolutions since the city’s incorporation in 1836.
2. Correspondence, reports, and financial records related to public expenditures, including Pennington Save & Cooperage LLC.
3. Documents related to renovations of public buildings, including the Metcalfe County Senior Center and other municipal properties.
4. Records concerning public complaints, grievances, and resolutions handled by the Mayor’s Office and city government.
5. All contracts, agreements, or policies regarding city-owned properties, including any subletting restrictions.
6. Records of disciplinary actions taken against city employees, including Community Action personnel.
7. Any communications between city officials and third parties, including Community Action of Southern Kentucky and corporate offices in Bowling Green, regarding public services.

The Herald-News reported on this open records case in our March 19, 2025, issue. In that article, we reached out to City Attorney Brian Pack of Pack Law Firm PSC in Glasgow, KY, who confirmed the city did receive Garmon’s records request and provided the assurance that the city had complied with those requests. The following is Mr. Pack’s statement at that time.

“The city did receive an open records request from Mr. Garmon, and in his request, he directed that the response should be sent to his attorney in Louisville. The city has complied in every respect with the law and will continue to do so if another open records request is received.”

 

Another Records Request

 The Herald-News office is in possession of a second open records request dated May 21, 2025, which was sent in an email to Mr. Pack requesting all communication between the City of Edmonton and representatives of Edmonton State Bank from January 1, 1999, to that date. The contents are dated April 28, 2025, and it states this is the 3^rd request; however, no other requests specifically stating this have been received or viewed by the Herald-News. Listed as the records requested are emails, text messages, letters, memos, contracts, financial agreements, meeting minutes, and any correspondence referring to the bank.

The Herald-News is also in possession of an email dated May 26, 2025, from Garmon to all local news outlets. It contained a copy of an appeal against the City of Edmonton and City Attorney Brian Pack dated May 24, 2025, containing a list of requests from April 4 through May 23, 2025, the outcome of each numbered 1 through 19, and a list of the alleged violations, plus Garmon’s requests for completion.

Amid the appeals and decisions, a complaint form dated June 2, 2025, was filed by Garmon with the Kentucky Bar Association. The complaint is registered against Attorney Brian K. Pack and lists within its two pages the following: Ethics Complaint, Alleged Violations of Professional Conduct, Harm and Public Interest, and Request for Disciplinary Review.

In response to an email from the Herald-News asking about the outcome of this complaint, Mr. Pack replied, “bar complaint against me was summarily dismissed by the KBA (Kentucky Bar Association).”

 

Attorney Generals Decision

 Attorney General Coleman rendered his decision August 8, 2025 for 25-ORD-214 and in his summary he states, “The City of Edmonton (“the City”) did not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it did not provide records it does not possess or when it timely provided all records responsive to a request.

The summary explains that the City did violate the Act when its initial response failed to explain its denial of two requests, but on appeal, it adequately explained that it denied the two requests, because they (Garmon) did not precisely describe the records sought.

 

Appeal Filed

Garmon then sent documentation to the Attorney General’s office requesting a reconsideration of the decision on 25-ORD-214. Asking the Office to enforce its previous decision, or alternatively to reconsider it.

On August 13, 2025, the Attorney General responded with Notice Declining Reconsideration.

This denial states, “The Attorney General shall not reconsider a decision rendered under the Open Records Law or the Open Meetings Law. Parties dissatisfied with a decision may appeal the decision to circuit court as provided in KRS 61.880(5) and 61.848.”