Request By:
[NO REQUESTBY IN ORIGINAL]
Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Department of Corrections violated the Open Records Act in responding to inmate Richard D. Dikin's request for records and information from the Department's office of Offender Information Services.
In an open records request, dated May 26, 2000, directed to Offender Information Services, Mr. Dikin requested:
One copy of the Resident Record Card for myself, Richard D. Dikin (Diken) inmate number 132151 which is current as of the date shown above. Also, any information or document which would state the obligation which was imposed on the same person based on his conviction, more specifically, whether or not he falls under the provisions of HB 440 (1998) and/or SB 263 (2000).
In his letter of appeal to this office, dated June 13, 2000, Mr. Dikin indicated that he had received no response to his request from the agency.
As authorized by KRS 61.880(2) and 40 KAR 1:030, Section 2, Tamela Biggs, Staff Attorney, Department of Corrections, provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the letter of appeal. In her response, Ms. Biggs advised:
I reviewed the request dated 26 May 2000 and discussed the appeal with Offender Information staff. They did not recall receiving the request and could not find same in either the inmate's or correspondence files. Since they did not receive the request, they did not respond.
I shall instruct Offender Information to forward a current resident record card to Mr. Dikin. As to the remainder of the "request," it is the opinion of this office that it is a request for information as opposed to a request for access to non-exempt public records. Mr. Dikin asks for "any information or document which would state the obligation which was imposed on the same person based on his conviction, more specifically, whether or not he falls under the provisions of HB 440 (1998) and/or SB 263 (2000)." He is asking staff to explain to him what his obligations are under two statutory provisions, specifically whether the provisions apply 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 Kentucky Revised Statutes are available to the inmate population via the inmate law library; therefore, Mr. Dikin can look the 1998 statute up at his leisure or enlist the assistance of an inmate legal aide to do so. If he wishes to obtain a copy of the 2000 legislation, this office could provide a copy of same from the internet as the legislation has not been published in bound form yet. It is not the job of either Central Office or institutional staff to answer questions regarding statutory interpretation.
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the response of the Department was proper and consistent with the Open Records Act and prior decisions of this office.
Since Mr. Dikin has been provided with a copy of his current resident record card, the appeal is moot as to that record. 40 KAR 1:030, Section 6.
Addressing next, Mr. Dikin's request as to "whether or not he falls under the provisions of HB 440 (1998) and/or SB 263 (2000)," we concur with the Department's position that this is a request for information rather that a specifically identified record. In 95-ORD-131, p. 2, we 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."
The purpose of the Open Records Act is not to provide information, but to provide access to public records that are not exempt by law. OAG 79-547. Thus, we conclude that the Department did not violate the Act in denying Mr. Dikin's request for information.
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.