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 is before the Attorney General on appeal from the actions of the Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR) relative to Ramone Neal's March 18, 1998 open records request to inspect documents in his institutional file.
In his letter of appeal, dated March 30, 1998, Mr. Neal stated he had yet to receive a response to his request.
After receipt of the letter of appeal, we sent a "Notification to Agency of Receipt of Open Records Appeal" to the Department of Corrections. As authorized by KRS 61.880(2) and 40 KAR 1:030, Section 2, Tamela Biggs, Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, Department of Corrections, provided this office with a response, on behalf of KSR, to the issues raised in the appeal. In her response, Ms. Biggs explained that Mr. Neal had initially submitted an open records request, on March 2, 1998, at the Luther Luckett Correctional Complex (LLCC) to inspect his institutional file in its entirety. LLCC responded by informing Mr. Neal that his request was broad and overly vague. Pursuant to KRS 61.872(2), he was requested to specify the documents he was requesting by name, form #, indictment #, and other identifying information.
On March 6, 1998, Mr. Neal was transferred to the Kentucky State Reformatory. At KSR, Mr. Neal was referred to his caseworker for assistance in filing a request. Five days later, he assaulted a KSR employee and was placed in disciplinary segregation. On March 18, 1998, when he submitted the open records request, which is the subject matter of this appeal, Mr. Neal was in disciplinary segregation. Ms. Biggs explained that, in such confinement, an inmate is prohibited from freely moving about the facility and, therefore, cannot conduct an on-site inspection in the records office and the facility is under no obligation to bring the original records to the inmate's cell for inspection.
As authorized by KRS 61.880(2)(b), this office requested additional information from the Department of Corrections relative to Mr. Neal's appeal. Ms. Biggs provided an additional response advising this office that Mr. Neal had been informed that his request to inspect his institutional file was being denied due to his confinement in segregation. However, he was further advised that he could obtain copies of records from his file and would be provided copies upon payment of the appropriate fees.
We are asked to determine whether the actions of the KSR relative to Mr. Neal's request were consistent with the Open Records Act. For the reasons which follow, we conclude that, although the KSR was procedurally deficient, its substantive actions were in accordance with the Act and prior decisions of this office.
KRS 61.880(1) sets forth procedural guidelines for agency response to an open records request. That statute provides:
Each public agency, upon any request for records made under KRS 61.870 to 61.884, shall determine within three (3) days, excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with the request and shall notify in writing the person making the request, within the three (3) day period, of its decision. An agency response denying, in whole or in part, inspection of any record shall include a statement of the specific exception authorizing the withholding of the record and a brief explanation of how the exception applies to the record withheld. The response shall be issued by the official custodian or under his authority, and it shall constitute final agency action.
These procedural requirements of the Open Records Act "are not mere formalities, but are an essential part of the prompt and orderly processing of an open records request." 93-ORD-125. It is incumbent on KSR to streamline its policies by educating its employees, including caseworkers, on the importance of providing a timely response, as well as timely access to records.
To the extent the KSR failed to respond to Mr. Neal's March 18, 1998 request in writing and within three business days after its receipt, it was in violation of the Open Records Act. KRS 61.880(1). However, this procedural violation is mitigated, in part, by the extenuating circumstances caused by Mr. Neal's transfer from one institution to another; and the delay caused by his subsequent placement in disciplinary confinement.
Turning to the substantive issue, the KSR denied Mr. Neal's request to inspect documents in his institutional file due to his confinement in segregation. He was advised, however, that he would be provided copies of the requested documents upon payment of the appropriate copying fee. We conclude that this response was proper and consistent with the Open Records Act.
In 95-ORD-105, this office addressed the issue relative to inmates and access to records, stating:
An inmate in a correctional facility is uniquely situated with respect to the exercise of his rights under the Open Records Act. Although, as we have recently observed, "all persons have the same standing to inspect and receive copies of public records, and are subject to the same obligations for receipt thereof," an inmate's movements within the facility are presumably restricted . . . Accordingly, an inmate must accept the necessary consequences of his confinement, including policies relative to application for, and receipt of, public records.
Moreover, this office, in both 95-ORD-105 and 96-ORD-70, said, in part, as follows concerning the nondelivery of records by a correctional facility to an inmate's cell:
Obviously, an inmate cannot exercise the right of on-site inspection at public agencies other than the facility in which he is confined. And, if he is prohibited from freely moving about in the facility, and therefore cannot conduct an on-site inspection in the records office, the facility is under no obligation to bring the original records to his cell for inspection.
Accordingly, it is the decision of this office that the actions of the KSR in denying Mr. Neal's request to inspect his institutional file due to his confinement in disciplinary segregation was consistent with the Open Records Act and these prior decisions of the Attorney General. We further conclude that KSR's offer to provide him copies of requested documents upon payment of the appropriate copying fee was also consistent with the Act. KRS 61.872(3); 95-ORD-105.
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.