Request By:
Michael Jenkins, # 081241
Marion Adjustment Center, BGU 603
95 Raywick Road
St. Mary, KY 40063Lisa Brady
Records Manager
95 Raywick Road
Highway 84
St. Mary, KY 40063Mike Moulton
Attorney for Marion Adjustment Center
58 Public Square
Elizabethtown, KY 42701
Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the response of the Marion Adjustment Center (MAC) to the open records request of Michael Jenkins, an inmate at the facility, to inspect "any approvals or denials on good time from 1979 to 1994. Why or why not?" violated the Open Records Act. For the reasons that follow, we conclude it did not.
Lisa Brady, Records Manager, MAC, responded to Mr. Jenkins' request by asking him to clarify his request. In her response, Ms. Brady stated "your request is broad, please be more specific as to what you are requesting, as in what type. Please clarify as to what type."
After receipt of a copy of Mr. Jenkins' letter of appeal, Ms. Brady provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. In her response, Ms. Brady elaborated:
There are four (4) different types of good time such as educational good time awards, meritorious good time awards, forfeiture of good time, and restorations of forfeited good time. Each of these has their own procedures as set out in corrections policy and procedures.
This office stated that his request was too broad, and to clarify. This office did not receive any further requests in regards to his initial request. Please note a copy of my original response is attached.
His initial request of 03-06-2001 appears to be more for information, reason for approvals or denials on good time, rather than specific documents.
We are asked to determine whether the actions of MAC in response to Mr. Jenkins' request constituted a violation of the Open Records Act.
In 94-ORD-12, this office articulated a standard for determining whether a requester had described the records sought with sufficient precision. At page 3 of that decision, we observed:
The purpose and intent of the Open Records Act is to permit the "free and open examination of public records." KRS 61.871. However, this right of access is not absolute. As a precondition to inspection, a requesting party must identify with "reasonable particularity" those documents which he or she wishes to review. OAG 89-81; OAG 91-58; OAG 92-56. Thus, if a public agency is to provide access to public documents, the requester must identify them with sufficient clarity to enable the agency to locate and make them available. If the requester cannot describe the documents he wishes to inspect with sufficient specificity, there is no requirement that the public agency conduct a search for such documents.
To begin, we note that Ms. Brady did not deny Mr. Jenkins' request. She asked that he clarify the specific records he was seeking. As a precondition to inspection, Mr. Jenkins must identify with "reasonable particularity" those documents that he wishes to review. OAG 91-58. As Ms. Brady explained in her response to the letter of appeal, there are four (4) different types of good time. Accordingly, Mr. Jenkins may wish to resubmit his request and attempt to refine and narrow the scope of his request by describing with reasonable particularity those records he wants to inspect.
Moreover, we agree with Ms. Brady's assertion that some of Mr. Jenkins' request is for information, as opposed to specifically described records. The request "why or why not?" is a request for information. This office has consistently recognized that the Open Records Act is not intended to serve as a means of commanding compilation and production of specific information, but is instead intended to provide for inspection of reasonably described records held by public agencies. OAG 92-91.
Under the facts presented in this appeal, we conclude that there was no violation of the Open Records Act.
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.