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 Green River Correctional Complex and the Department of Corrections violated the Open Records Act in responding to inmate Harold Durham's requests for records and information relating to disciplinary action taken against him and the subsequent expungement of records relating to that action. Because the transactions giving rise to Mr. Durham's separate appeals raise common questions of law, they are consolidated for purposes of administrative adjudication. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the actions of G.R.C.C. and the Department of Corrections.
On February 23, 1999, Mr. Durham submitted an open records request to G.R.C.C.'s offender records specialist, Teresa Shanklin, for "all information that led to the recent expungement" of urine test results from his institutional file. After determining which test results Mr. Durham was referring to, Ms. Shanklin sent him a copy of the results along with "a written synopsis of the action taken to expunge certain documents from [his] file." Dissatisfied with this response, on March 5, 1999, Mr. Durham submitted a written request to Stephen Durham, general counsel for the Department of Corrections, requesting "all information that led to the expungement of the disciplinary report pursuant to KRS 61." On behalf of Stephen Durham and the Department of Corrections, staff attorney Tamela Biggs responded to the May 5 request by advising Mr. Durham that all existing records, consisting of the disciplinary report and the written synopsis, had been sent to him, and all remaining issues were therefore "moot." It is from these actions that Mr. Durham appeals, arguing that he is "entitled to any and all information that prompted the expungement. "
In a supplemental response dated March 30, 1999, Ms. Biggs elaborated on G.R.C.C.'s and the Department of Corrections' positions. She explained:
Harold Durham has now been provided with all of the documentation regarding the expungement from his record. The Department does not have any further documentation that it can provide. After reading the appeal and re-reading the letter to General Counsel, it appears that Mr. Durham is actually requesting information as opposed to access to public records which are non-exempt under KRS 61.878 or other state or federal provisions. If information is truly what Mr. Durham seeks, the Department is not required to provide same to him. The purpose of the Open Records Law is not to provide information but to provide access to public records not exempted from inspection by law. OAG 89-61. The Department has complied with its statutory duty in providing Mr. Durham with copies of the documentation regarding the expungement from his record. The Department is not required to provide him with "the information that led to or prompted the expungement of [this] record."
We fully agree, and affirm G.R.C.C.'s and the Department of Corrections' handling of these requests.
Neither G.R.C.C. nor the Department of Corrections was obligated to honor that portion of Mr. Durham's request which constituted a request for information as opposed to a request for specifically described records. As we have so often observed:
Requests for information, as distinguished from records, are outside of the scope of the open records provisions. See, e.g., OAG 89-77. Our position is premised on the notion that "open records provisions address only inspection of records . . . [and] do not require public agencies or officials to provide or compile specific information to conform to the parameters of a given request."
95-ORD-131, p. 2, citing OAG 89-77, p. 4. Simply stated, "The purpose of the Open Records Law is not to provide information, but to provide access to public records which are not exempt by law." OAG 79-547, p. 2. Mr. Durham has been furnished with copies of all existing records that are responsive to his records request. The Open Records Act does not require more.
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.