Request By:
[NO REQUESTBY IN ORIGINAL]
Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether Western Kentucky Correctional Complex violated the Open Records Act in denying Alan L. Tyler's July 14, and July 21, 1998, requests for copies of "maintenance work request[s] for Building A, Wing 2, only from 1 July, 1997, to 1 November, 1997." For the reasons that follow, we find that WKCC properly denied both requests.
In response to Mr. Tyler's July 14 request, WKCC records custodian Cynthia Vinson advised the inmate that his inmate account did not contain sufficient funds to cover the cost of copies. Relying on KRS 61.874(1), she explained that the custodian may require prepayment for copies, and suggested that he resubmit his request when his account contained sufficient funds. On July 21, Mr. Tyler resubmitted his request. Ms. Vinson also denied this request. Although she did not cite the specific statute authorizing her denial, Ms. Vinson quoted it in full:
KRS 61.872 to the contrary notwithstanding, the department shall not be required to comply with a request for any record from any inmate confined in a jail or any facility or any individual on active supervision under the jurisdiction of the department, unless the request is for a record which pertains to that individual.
It was WKCC's position that this language, which appears at KRS 197.025(2), and which took effect on July 15, 1998, precludes Mr. Tyler from inspecting the work orders. Mr. Tyler responds that the records do relate to him because he "was injured in the shower area and there was a maintenance work request for Building (A), Wing (2) . . . in that dorm area where [he] lived." He argues tht he needs these records "as evidence in a Board of Claims action filed against that institution."
In a follow-up letter to this office, Department of Corrections staff attorney Tamela Biggs explained the underlying legislative intent of KRS 197.025(2):
In the past, inmates often requested records covering a myriad of topics (i.e., how much was spent per pig or cow for feed, the Warden's sewer bill or insurance coverage or vacation schedule, how much was paid for paint for the gym, the current home address of the inmate's victim - this information being open to the inmate under the "victim impact statement exception to the law against disclosure"). The statutory change was made in response to these types of requests. A record must bear the inmate's name in order to be subject to disclosure under the new provision.
In closing, Ms. Biggs noted that since Mr. Tyler is involved in litigation against the facility before the Board of Claims, the record would be available to him through discovery.
We affirm WKCC's denial of Mr. Tyler's requests. With respect to the issue of prepayment of copying charges, we refer Mr. Tyler to 95-ORD-90 and the authorities cited therein. Those decisions uniformly hold that KRS 61.874(1) authorizes public agencies to require advance payment of copying fees. Because Mr. Tyler's inmate account did not contain sufficient funds to cover the cost of copies on July 14, when he submitted his first request, WKCC properly refused to reproduce the records for him.
Turning to the denial of his second request, we find that WKCC's position was legally sound. As Ms. Biggs noted, KRS 197.025 underwent significant revision in the 1998 legislative session. As amended, KRS 197.025(2) now limits an inmate's access to records which do not pertain to him or her. This provision took effect on July 15, 1998. Mr. Tyler's second request was submitted on July 21, 1998 - six days after the new law became effective. Because the maintenance work requests for which he asked do not relate to him, he is not entitled to inspect or receive copies of them.
That these documents may be relevant to his pending Board of Claims action against WKCC does not alter our conclusion. While there may be occasions when we are presented with a closer issue, these records simply do not pertain to Mr. Tyler. To hold otherwise would open the door to other tenuous claims thereby subverting the intent of the recent enactment. It is our opinion that WKCC properly denied Mr. Tyler's July 21 request on the basis that the requested work orders to not pertain to him.
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.