Sure.. Let’s play!
So apparently asking too many questions is now a problem. The City of Falmouth, through its attorney, just responded to my five open records requests not by honoring them, but by accusing me of trying to “disrupt City operations.”
Let that sink in. Requesting public records… is now disruptive? Let’s break it down.
The Five Requests They Didn’t Want to Answer:
Every Open Records Request filed since Jan 1, 2024
Their excuse: Too burdensome. Claims it would require reviewing too many responses. Somehow, this is both public and too private at the same time. They told me to narrow it down
.
Fire Hydrant Maintenance Records (2000–present)
Their excuse: Again, “unreasonably burdensome.” 25 years is too long. Odd, if the city had actually maintained and tracked these hydrants, wouldn’t records be easy to produce? They even referenced my own reporting as a reason to not fulfill the request. Yes, seriously.
Any communication mentioning The Falmouth Whisper
Their excuse: Claimed it falls under criminal investigation exemptions, while also saying my request was too broad and lacked a date range. So… it’s either too vague or too sensitive. Convenient.
City Hall Surveillance Footage (purse incident)
Their excuse: Claimed it’s part of an active criminal investigation, so no footage can be released. No timeline, no updates, no transparency. Just a flat wall of silence.
Hydrant Infrastructure Docs & Maps (2000–present)
Their excuse: Too many years. Records are in storage. Might require “manual review.” Offered vague mention of a 2023 report and some maps in off-site storage, but nothing else.
Oh and they threw in a sixth one at the end for good measure:
All fire incident reports since 2009, denied, again, for being “too big.”
The City’s Pattern: Delay, Deny, Distract
In nearly every paragraph, they cite KRS 61.872(6), a clause that allows denying requests that are “unreasonably burdensome.” They lean heavily on obscure opinions like 24-ORD-047 and 23-ORD-315 to paint my requests as disruptive, which is both lazy and suspicious.
Here’s the problem: these records should already exist. And the public has a right to inspect them, especially when we’re talking about safety infrastructure, fire reports, and government communications about a news outlet exposing city failures.
What They Really Mean
“You’re asking too many questions, too publicly, and we don’t like that.” That’s what this letter really says. They didn’t even try to provide partial access or schedule rolling delivery. They just shut the door.
Our Response?
We’re not going anywhere. And we’ll keep filing, narrowing, and appealing. We’ll fight every excuse, every delay tactic, and every misuse of exemptions. Because what they’re calling “disruptive” is what the rest of us call investigative journalism.
So now I’m calling on the Kentucky Attorney General’s Office to intervene and I’ll be preparing appeals for every single denial. Let’s see how “burdensome” this gets when you have to defend it under legal review. Leave your thoughts below. We’re just getting started.
Whisper One Out