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 Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex violated the Open Records Act in denying Elbert Estep's November 23, 1999, request "to know how mutch [sic] it cost [sic] to process a disciplinary report and where the money comes from, i.e., state funds, etc." For the reasons that follow, we affirm EKCC's denial of Mr. Estep's request.
In a response dated November 24, 1999, EKCC's open records coordinator, Martha Stacy, advised Mr. Estep that "the purpose of Open Records is to provide copies of documents," and not to require public agencies to compile information. She suggested that Mr. Estep contact the adjustment committee at EKCC to obtain this information. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Estep initiated this open records appeal.
In a supplemental response directed to this office, Department of Corrections staff attorney, Tamela Biggs, elaborated on EKCC's position. Ms. Biggs characterized Mr. Estep's request as "a request for information , not for access to non-exempt public records. " She explained:
Mr. Estep is asking institutional staff to provide an answer to his questions. He has not asked for a fiscal or administrative record that would set forth said cost.
Relying on OAGs 79-547, 89-61, 89-77, and 90-77, Ms. Biggs argued that requests for information, as opposed to requests for reasonably identified public records, and requests that particular methods of inquiry into public records be conducted, are not within the scope of the Open Records Act.
In addition, Ms. Biggs noted, even if Mr. Estep's request were a properly framed request for public records, "such would be denied pursuant to the 15 July 1998 amendments to KRS 197.025(2)." She explained that KRS 197.025(2) authorizes the Department of Corrections to deny a request for any record from an inmate confined in a jail, or facility under the department's jurisdiction, unless the request is for a record which pertains to that inmate. It was Ms. Biggs's position that "the legislative intent behind the provision requires that the requested document or file specifically reference the inmate [, and] a fiscal or administrative document regarding the cost of any function of the Department would not contain any reference to Mr. Estep." We fully concur with EKCC and the Department of Corrections in its characterization of Mr. Estep's request as a request for information, and in the view that if the request had been properly framed, KRS 197.025(2) would authorize EKCC and the Department to deny it on the basis that the record does not pertain to Mr. Estep.
We affirm EKCC's denial of Mr. Estep's request for information relating to the cost of processing a prison disciplinary report and the source of funds used to defray this cost. As Ms. Biggs correctly observes, the Attorney General has long recognized that the Open Records Act "does not require public agencies to carry out research or compile information to conform to a given request." OAG 89-45, p. 3, citing OAG 79-547 and OAG 83-333. Thus, this office has commented:
Although information may be gleaned from these records, it is the public agency's duty to make public records available for inspection and copying. Public agencies are not required by the Open Records Act to gather and supply information independent of that which is set forth in public records.
93-ORD-94, p. 7. Because Mr. Estep's request was framed as a request for information, and not as a request for reasonably identified public records, we conclude that EKCC properly denied it.
Although the issue is not before us, we also concur with EKCC and the Department in their view that they would not be obliged to honor a request for records documenting the cost of processing a prison disciplinary report, or the source of funding for the reports, in light of KRS 197.025(2). That statute provides:
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.
Although Mr. Estep argues that the information/record pertains to him, insofar as prisoners are the subjects of disciplinary reports, we believe that this argument is tenuous at best. As this office recently observed, we are reluctant to "open the door to . . . tenuous claims thereby subverting the intent of [KRS 197.025(2)]." 98-ORD-150, p. 3.
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.