Request By:
Ms. Barbara Stuart
Custodian of Records
Kentucky State Penitentiary
P.O. Box 128
Eddyville, Kentucky 42038-0128
Opinion
Opinion By: Frederic J. Cowan, Attorney General; Amye B. Majors, Assistant Attorney General
Mr. Earl McFall, an inmate at the Kentucky State Penitentiary, has appealed to the Attorney General, pursuant to KRS 61.880, your denial of his October 18, 1991, open records request for a copy of his October 1991 transfer authorization form. You responded to Mr. McFall's request on October 22, 1991, indicating that you were unable to provide him with a copy of the records because he had no money in his inmate account to cover the reproduction cost. You advised him that he could obtain a copy of the form when sufficient funds became available.
In his letter of appeal to this Office, Mr. McFall argues that your actions were inconsistent with the Open Records Act in that your response was tantamount to a denial of his request. He suggests that the custodian should release the records immediately, and "charge" the inmate's account, withdrawing the funds when they become available.
Mr. McFall asks that we review your response to determine if it is consistent with the Open Records Act. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that you properly responded to Mr. McFall's request.
OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
In Friend v. Rees, Ky.App., 696 S.W.2d 325 (1985), the Kentucky Court of Appeals addressed a similar question, holding that an inmate is entitled to a copy of an open record upon compliance with a reasonable reproduction charge. Inmate Friend asserted that he was entitled to copies at no cost under the Kentucky Open Records Act. The Court of Appeals flatly rejected his position, noting:
[T]he Chief Clerk's office offered to provide copies of . . . [Friend's] records provided he tender the fee of ten cents per page . A public agency is authorized to prescribe reasonable fees for making copies of public records. KRS 61.876(1)(c) and KRS 61.874(2).
Friend v. Rees, 696 S.W.2d at 326. (Emphasis added.) We believe this case is dispositive of the present appeal.
Mr. McFall has been advised that a copy of the requested records will be released to him when he has sufficient funds in his inmate account. You have not denied his request, but have implemented the rule announced in Friend v. Rees, supra, and KRS 61.874(2). Your actions were therefore entirely consistent with the Open Records Act.
As required by statute, a copy of this opinion will be sent to the requester, Mr. Earl McFall. Mr. McFall may challenge it by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5).