City Shifts Rationale, Then Denies Redacted Release of Dr. Juby Email Sought by Citizen in Shelter Records Dispute

A Kansas Open Records Act dispute over an email from Salina Animal Shelter contracting veterinarian Dr. Melissa Juby has become more detailed after the City of Salina changed its reason for withholding the record, then later said no portion of the email could be released, even in redacted form.

The dispute stems from a records request filed by Susan Nickel of Salina, who sought copies of all email communications and attachments exchanged between Dr. Melissa Juby, Andrea Murphy, Monique Hawley, and Jeff Hammond.

Nickel requested any emails in which those individuals appeared as sender, recipient, copied, or blind copied during the period from Dec. 10, 2025, through Feb. 28, 2026. The request also included attachments, forwarded messages, and reply chains.

According to the city attorney’s later written response, the city initially told Nickel on Friday, March 20, that one of the requested records was being withheld as a veterinary record.

That record appears to be an email from Dr. Juby tied to the ongoing controversy surrounding the euthanasia of three puppies at the Salina Animal Shelter in December.

In a later email dated March 27, Salina City Attorney Patrick Hoffman told Nickel the city had revisited that position.

“Last Friday, March 20th, I indicated that one of the records you requested was not disclosed as a veterinary record,” Hoffman wrote. “I have reviewed that record and no longer have that view.”

Rather than continuing to withhold the email under veterinary confidentiality, Hoffman said the city was now denying its release under two Kansas Open Records Act exemptions: K.S.A. 45-221(a)(4) and K.S.A. 45-221(a)(20).

Hoffman wrote that subsection (a)(4) applies because the record contains “individually identifiable personnel information pertaining to employees,” while subsection (a)(20) applies because the record contains “internal communications in which opinions are expressed and policies or actions are proposed.”

He also said the city had determined the record could not be reasonably separated and redacted in a way that would allow the release of non-exempt material.

“The City has also determined that the record cannot be reasonably segregated and redacted in a manner that would permit disclosure of non-exempt material without revealing protected information,” Hoffman wrote.

After receiving that response, Nickel sent a follow-up email asking the city to reconsider.

In her message, Nickel said she understood the city’s position that the email contains personnel-related information, but argued that KORA requires disclosure of any reasonably segregable portion of a record after identifying details are redacted.

She wrote that even if the email references specific individuals, it was difficult to reconcile how all factual content, including the date, time, general description of the incident, and any directives issued, could not be separated from personally identifiable personnel information.

Nickel also argued that factual statements and descriptions of events are generally not exempt under K.S.A. 45-221(a)(4), and said redacting names or identifying details is a routine method used to allow disclosure while protecting privacy.

Given what she described as the significant public interest in the matter, and the city’s acknowledgment that the record was not privileged as a veterinary record, Nickel asked the city to reconsider whether a redacted version containing non-identifying factual content could be produced.

She also requested a more detailed explanation if the city intended to maintain its position that no portion of the email could be disclosed.

Hoffman responded again, this time narrowing the city’s rationale even further.

“In this instance, the entirety of this email pertains to identifiable individual personnel,” Hoffman wrote. “The City has determined that redaction is not feasible in a manner that would sufficiently de-identify the individuals involved. Accordingly, disclosure of the records, even in redacted form, would not adequately protect the privacy interests recognized under KORA.”

That exchange leaves the city in a different position than where it started.

According to Hoffman’s own timeline, the city first treated the email as a veterinary record and withheld it on that basis on March 20. By March 27, the city said it no longer viewed the email that way and instead relied on discretionary KORA exemptions related to personnel information and internal communications. After Nickel asked for a redacted version, the city responded that the entire email is so tied to identifiable personnel that no meaningful redaction is possible.

The email at the center of the dispute is tied to a matter of ongoing public interest. Questions surrounding shelter euthanasia procedures, veterinary oversight, staff training, and the internal response to the December puppy incident have remained a major topic at both Animal Shelter Advisory Board meetings and Salina City Commission meetings.

Nickel has since filed an official complaint with the Kansas Attorney General, arguing that withholding the email in its entirety violates the Kansas Open Records Act.

Nickel has also said that she and others involved in the broader push for transparency in this matter are reviewing possible legal options.