Request By:
[NO REQUESTBY IN ORIGINAL]
Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
This matter comes to the Attorney General on appeal from the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex's (EKCC) response to James Perry's open records request for information relating to TB tests conducted at EKCC. In his request, Mr. Perry asked how many inmates were tested for TB during the period from 10/24/97 to 11/3/97 and how many tests came back positive for active or inactive. He stated that it was not necessary to receive the names of individuals tested nor copies of documents, he just wanted the numbers responsive to his questions.
The Medical Department, EKCC denied Mr. Perry's request, stating that the information was confidential and exempted from disclosure under KRS 61.878(1)(a).
In his letter of appeal, Mr. Perry again stated he did not want the name of any inmate or staff member, just the statistical information related to the TB tests at the institution.
After receipt of the letter of appeal and as authorized by KRS 61.880(2) and 40 KAR 1:030, Section 2, Michelle Nickell, Open Records Coordinator, EKCC, provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. In her response, Ms. Nickell stated, in relevant part:
The request from inmate Perry was actually for information and not actual documents. As you can see from his request, he is just asking for the Medical Department to fill in numbers on his request. Per OAG 92-91 says "A public agency is not required to compile information or answer questions, but is only to produce documents . . . which are responsive to a request." Since inmate Perry's request, other inmates have requested documents regarding the TB tests that have been conducted at EKCC. These requests have been denied because there are no documents that reflect the information that was requested (a copy of one such request is attached). KRS 61.878(i) states that preliminary drafts, notes, correspondence with private individuals other than correspondence which is intended to give notice of final action of a public agency is exempt from inspection.
We are asked to determine if EKCC's actions relative to Mr. Perry's request constitute a violation of the Open Records Act. For the reasons which follow, we conclude that EKCC's response was consistent with the Act.
This office has consistently recognized that a request for information, as opposed to a request for specific documents, need not be honored under the Open Records Act. See, for example, OAG 90-100, copy enclosed. There we held that to the extent that the request asked questions, it was a request for information as distinguished from a request to inspect reasonably identified documents.
Moreover, in expanding on this notion that open records provisions address only inspection of records, we have held that the Act does not require public agencies or officials to provide or compile specific information to conform to the parameters of a specific request. 96-ORD-12. In its response, EKCC indicated that it had no documents which reflected the specific information requested by Mr. Perry. Accordingly, it is the decision of this office that EKCC properly denied the request for information and its response did not violate the Act.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.