Request By:
[NO REQUESTBY IN ORIGINAL]
Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; Amye Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether Lee Adjustment Center violated the Open Records Act in its disposition of inmate Michael Tayler's June 12, 2000, request for his "visitors list with all [his] kids' social security numbers." For the reasons that follow, we find that LAC's response did not violate the Act.
In a response dated June 14, 2000, LAC records custodian Tracy Brewer denied Mr. Tayler's request. Relying on KRS 61.878(1)(a), she explained that the visitors list contains information of a personal nature the public disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. This appeal followed.
In a supplemental response directed to this office, Sherril Gautreaux, director of legal affairs for Corrections Corporation of America, which operates LAC, elaborated on the facility's position. She explained:
An inmate is required to submit a visitation list containing names of persons that he wishes to visit him at the correctional facilities. Upon thevisitor's arrival, the visitor will complete a visitation form that contains certain personal data, including social security numbers, which will remain on file at the facility.
Citing Kentucky case law and Attorney General's decisions, Ms. Gautreaux maintained that "social security numbers have been determined to be "confidential information" exempt from disclosure under the Act." She expressed concern that dissemination of this information within the facility might facilitate "fraudulent transactions." Ms. Gautreaux proposed that as an alternative to unrestricted access, LAC would provide Mr. Tayler with a copy of "his prior visitation list with the social security numbers redacted. " We find that disclosure of a redacted copy of the visitation list to Mr. Tayler satisfies the requirements of the Open Records Act.
In Zink v. Commonwealth, Department of Workers' Claims, Ky. App., 902 S.W.2d 825, 829 (1994), the Kentucky Court of Appeals recognized that disclosure of an individual's social security number in an otherwise public record would constitute a serious intrusion into the individual's personal privacy. The court characterized these nine digit identifiers as "no less than the keys to an information kingdom as [they] relate to any given individual." Id. Conversely, the court recognized, disclosure of an individual's social security number "would do little to further the citizen's right to know what their government is doing and would not in any real way subject agency action to public scrutiny." Id. Weighing the compelling individual privacy interest in social security numbers against the de minimus public interest in disclosure, the court concluded that the privacy balance tipped in favor of nondisclosure of social security numbers. The Attorney General, who had long recognized the uniquely sensitive and private nature of social security numbers, adopted this position in a series of open records decisions affirming public agency denial of access to them. See, e.g., 97-ORD-176; 99-ORD-113.
Through Corrections Corporation of America, LAC has agreed to furnish Mr. Tayler with a redacted copy of his visitation list. The only issue in dispute is whether he is entitled to an unredacted copy that includes his children's social security numbers. Based on the authorities cited above, we believe that he is not entitled to an unredacted copy, and that LAC may properly mask the numbers. We know of no open records related public purpose that would be served by disclosure of Mr. Tayler's children's social security number, and, under the Open Records Act, he stands in the same shoes as any other records applicant.
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 proceedings.