He never offered that the offending signs would be removed and, as I was to find out later, the "since been modified" ordinance was actually changed on 19 September 2001, shortly after the KY Post News article was published.  Campbell Fiscal Court publishes the minutes of their meetings online so I read through the previous month or so and then watched for a number of subsequent weeks to see how and when the ordinance had been modified.  The issue was never referred to.  It seemed to me that I was being blown off so I decided further inquiry into the situation was necessary.

Not knowing the ordinance had already been changed, I submitted an Open Records Request to Fiscal Court asking for a copy of any legislative act that would apply to the ordinance in question.  I also sent an OR Request to one of Campbell County Parks Recreation Managers requesting a copy of any administrative command or request that pertained to the "No firearms" prohibition posted at the park.  Basically, I wanted to know if the parks staff were simply not willing to remove the signs or, if in fact, there was ever an order from County government ordering them to do so.

A telephone call seeking clarification of the Fiscal Court request was received within days and was promptly followed up with a hard copy of the current codification of the ordinance by mail.  This is when I found out that it had actually been modified so long before.  After nearly two weeks, the law requires a reply within 3 days, I sent a follow-up letter to the Recreation Manager asking why he had failed to answer my inquiry.  After two more weeks, I was tired of waiting and decided to take my inquiries to another office.

Details of the situation were sent to the Office of the Kentucky Attorney General.  I asked if statutes concerning abuse of public office could be applied with regard to the continued posting of the "No Firearms" signs in spite of County officials knowing they were illegal, and also if the inaction on the part of the Recreation Manager violated the Open Records Act.  The AG decided the abuse question was outside the authority of his office but took up my unanswered request as an "appeal" of a denial under the Open Records Act.  This is where the story gets real interesting and the real abuse comes to light.

Campbell County officials were contacted by the AG and allowed to offer their side of the story.  Despite the protestations of the Campbell Assistant County Attorney, the AG found in his decision "that the Fiscal Court's response was only partially consistent with the requirements of the Open Records Act, and constituted, to the extent of the deficiencies described below, a violation of the Act."  They went on to point out that "With regard to Mr. Hall's unanswered request, we find that it is incumbent on the Campbell County Fiscal Court to ascertain whether responsive records exist, to promptly advise Mr. Hall of its findings, and to release all nonexempt responsive records to him. If no responsive records exist, the Fiscal Court is obligated to affirmatively so advise Mr. Hall."

It should be noted that somewhere around this time the offending signs that were the object of all this attention were finally taken down.  Shortly after the AG's 27 October findings, the Recreation Manager finally responded (7 November) to my inquiry.  Regardless that the signs had apparently been removed prior to November, it stated "no additional records (i.e. order, decree, proclamation, memorandum, or other administrative command or request) since January 2001 that pertain to the prohibition of firearms, and / or any similar weapons prohibition at other Campbell County Parks have been found."  I have to wonder, did he take it upon himself to remove them or was he informed to do so telepathically?

What an ordeal just to convince an elected official he has to follow the law.  So, in the end, the system works and the little guy, with the law on his side prevails, right?  Well not exactly, the story isn't quite over yet.  Imagine my surprise when the postman knocks at my door 5 days later and has me sign for a rather large envelope marked "Certified Mail" from the Campbell County Attorney.

Upon opening the envelope, the first thing I see is "Civil Summons" followed by "Campbell County Fiscal Court vs. James R. Hall".  Now, I'm not all that familiar with the court system, I'm just a regular guy that likes to hold our elected officials and their armies of bureaucrats accountable to the law of the land, the same law the rest of us are required to follow.  To tell you the truth, I was rather taken aback by the words "Civil Summons" and my name on the same page, ESPECIALLY when I was described as the "DEFENDANT".  Thankfully attorney J. Scott Kappas, KC3 member, friend of firearms owners everywhere and very knowledgeable author of TRAVELER'S GUIDE to the FIREARM LAWS of the FIFTY STATES came to my rescue with an explanation.

It turns out that the only recourse for Campbell County to overturn the AG's decision against them was to file an action in Kentucky Circuit Court.  The De Novo Appeal of the Open Records Decision of the Kentucky Attorney General named me as the defendant because KY law stipulates that "The Attorney General shall not...be named as a party in any Circuit Court actions regarding the enforcement of [the Open Records Act] nor shall he have any duty to defend his decision in Circuit Court or any subsequent proceedings."  I'm not sure of the motive for the appeal, it might be that they just didn't like being told they were wrong or it could be that they were trying to shield the County from the possibility that I would seek certain punitive damages and other costs allowed by law.  KRS 61.882 provides that:

Any person who prevails against any agency in any action in the courts regarding a violation of KRS 61.870 to 61.884 may, upon a finding that the records were willfully withheld in violation of KRS 61.870 to 61.884, be awarded costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred in connection with the legal action. If such person prevails in part, the court may in its discretion award him costs or an appropriate portion thereof. In addition, it shall be within the discretion of the court to award the person an amount not to exceed twenty-five dollars ($25) for each day
that he was denied the right to inspect or copy said public record. Attorney's fees, costs, and awards under this subsection shall be paid by the agency that the court determines is responsible for the violation.

The $25 dollar a day provision alone would have resulted in a penalty of approximately $1800.  If I could have sought compensation from the officials themselves I may have gone for it but the taxpayer would ultimately have paid any penalty.

At this point, no action was necessary on my part.  I could answer the summons and take part in the appeal or I could ignore it and the court would likely find for the County in my absence.   Having accomplished what I had originally set out to do, repeal the ordinance and remove the offending signs, I nearly decided to let the County have their way.  Upon further reflection I decided to file an answer with the court that at least would set the record straight since the appeal filed by the County seemed to stretch the facts in more than one instance.  I figured the correspondence record in itself would suffice to support the AG's findings and with my continued involvement I might be able to convince the judge to simply dismiss the appeal and let stand the AG's decision.

It simply wasn't going to happen.  A short time later I received notice of a "Discovery Hearing", which I assume was for the purpose of documenting evidence in the case.  Again I thought about how I had accomplished my original goals and that the only thing to gain was to not allow the County to evade the stigma of their wrongdoing.  I decided it just wasn't worth the trouble and wrote the presiding judge in the case, The Hon. William J. Wehr, the following:

"While I continue to dispute the contention of the Campbell Fiscal Court that both of my open records requests were satisfied, I have no desire to pursue any additional action with regard to this situation. Also, I see no reason to further burden the Circuit Court or the taxpayers of Campbell County or those of the Commonwealth. To this end, I respectfully request that you dismiss the appeal and let stand the findings of the Attorney General. Regardless of your decision in this matter, I prefer not to participate in any forthcoming proceedings nor add anything further to the record unless compelled to do so by the court."

That seemed to be all that Judge Wehr needed to hear.  Twelve days later he issued his unbelievable decision.

"The Attorney General found that the County did issue a timely written response to Mr. Hall's requests. The only issue before the Attorney General was resolved in favor of the County.  It is the order and judgment of this Court that the County did timely respond to Mr. Hall's open records request and therefore, there is no violation of the open records laws."

To put it mildly, I was dumbfounded!  "The only issue before the Attorney General was resolved in favor of the County"??!!?  WHY then did the County ever bother to file an appeal at all?  The fact is, the Attorney General DID NOT find in favor of the County as I pointed out before:

The AG found "that the Fiscal Court's response was only partially consistent with the requirements of the Open Records Act, and constituted, to the extent of the deficiencies described below, a violation of the Act."

The Hon. William J. Wehr is actually Chief Regional Circuit Judge.  One has to wonder how he ever achieved that position if this decision is indicative of his ability to weigh the pertinent facts.  Or is this just an example of the Northern KY "good 'ol boy" system in action?  I'll let you be the judge.