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 Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (EKCC) violated the Open Records Act in its disposition of the request of Joseph Clark to inspect certain records maintained by EKCC. We conclude that EKCC's denial of Mr. Clark's request, for failure to include inmate identification information required by 501 KAR 6:020, Corrections Policy and Procedure (CPP) 6.1, did not violate the Act.
On December 1, 2003, Mr. Clark submitted an open records request for EKCC records relating to inmate move(s) from Dorm 2, upper cell 1, from November 7 to November 22.
On the same date, Tammie Williams, EKCC offender information specialist, denied Mr. Clark's request, advising him:
Request Denied due to "C.P.P. 6.1 section B item 1 'Request shall contain the following information, A. inmates name and number B. cell, room or housing assignment C. reasonably particular description of request."
In his letter of appeal, Mr. Clark asserts that the information which Ms. Williams stated he failed to include on his request was, in fact, on the request form and, thus, unlawfully denied his request.
After receipt of notification of the appeal and a copy of the letter of appeal, Emily Dennis, Staff Attorney, Department of Corrections, provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. In her response, Ms. Dennis advised, in relevant part:
In his letter of appeal, Mr. Clark alleges that EKCC offender information specialist Tammie Williams unlawfully discriminated against him in denying him access to records. Ms. Williams denied Mr. Clark's 12/01/03 request for reason that Clark's request failed to include adequate inmate identification information, including the inmate's identification and housing assignment, pursuant to 501 KAR 6:020, Corrections Policy and Procedure (CPP) 6.1.
CPP 6.1 V1.B.1. provides that a request received from the inmate population shall contain the following information:
This information is required for a records custodian to confirm the identity of the inmate requesting the public record. Pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(l) and 197.025(2), the Department is not required to provide records in response to a request from an inmate, unless the record requested contains specific reference to the inmate requester.
Attached to Mr. Clark's appeal is a copy of his alleged request to inspect public records. Contrary to Mr. Clark's claim, this is not a copy of the original request for purposes of making an appeal to the Attorney General. Mr. Clark's original request in fact did not include adequate inmate identification, including his inmate number and housing assignment. (See attached copy of Affidavit of Tammie Williams, EKCC Offender Information Specialist) .
We are asked to determine whether EKCC's denial of Mr. Clark's request, for failure to include inmate identification information required by 501 KAR 6:020, Corrections Policy and Procedure (CPP) 6.1, violated the Open Records Act. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the agency's actions did not violate the Act.
As Ms. Dennis explained in her response, pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(l) and 197.025(2), the Department or its institutions are not required to provide records in response to an open records request from an inmate, unless the record requested contains specific reference to the inmate requester. She further explained that the purposes of 501 KAR 6:020, Corrections Policy and Procedure (CPP) 6.1., requiring inmates to provide certain inmate identification information, is to enable a records custodian to confirm the identity of the inmate requesting the public records. In this manner the records custodian can determine if the requested records pertain to the inmate requesting to inspect the records and meet the requirements of 197.025(2).
EKCC denied Mr. Clark's request for failure to include the necessary inmate identification information required by 501 KAR 6:020, Corrections Policy and Procedure (CPP) 6.1. Accordingly, we conclude that the agency's denial of the request on this basis was proper and consistent with its policies and procedures relating to inmate open records requests, and to ensure that the requested records pertain to the inmate requesting the records, as required by KRS 197.025(2) , in tandem with KRS 61.878(1)(l). This office has recognized that the Department of Corrections is vested with broad discretion in matters related to the safety, security, and operation of its institutions. See 94-ORD-40. We are not in the position to second guess the Department or to conclude that its policy requiring inmates to provide certain inmate identification information along with their open records requests was an abuse of this discretion.
Finally, Mr. Clark asserts in his letter of appeal and correspondence that he provided the necessary information in his original request. The EKCC and the Department has provided an affidavit and a copy of the original request that indicates that some of the information was not included with the original request. Regarding disagreements of this nature between a requester and a public agency, this office, in OAG 89-81, stated:
This office cannot, with the information currently available, adjudicate a dispute regarding a disparity, if any, between records for which inspection has already been permitted, and those sought but not provided. Indeed, such is not the role of this office under open records provisions. It seems clear that you have permitted inspection of some records [the requester] asked to inspect, and that copies of some records have been provided. Hopefully any dispute regarding the records here involved can be worked out through patient consultation and cooperation between the parties.
Accordingly, the parties should continue to cooperate to resolve any differences or misunderstandings related to Mr. Clark's open records request and the inmate identification information required by 501 KAR 6:020, Corrections Policy and Procedure (CPP) 6.1.
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.
Joseph Clark, # 111587Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex9-A-uper-8200 Road to JusticeWest Liberty, KY 41472
Tammie WilliamsRecords Custodian Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex200 Road to JusticeWest Liberty, KY 41472
Emily DennisKY Department of CorrectionsOffice of General Counsel2439 Old Lawrenceburg RoadP.O. Box 2400Frankfort, KY 40602-2400