Opinion
Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether Kentucky State Reformatory violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of Michael D. Cofer's request 1 for "third shift names of Lt. yard officers and supervising officer for time around 6:30 a.m. - 7:30 a.m. for the following date 1-2-04, 1-3-04 [sic]." For the reasons that follow, we find that KSR's disposition of Mr. Cofer's request was procedurally deficient but substantively correct.
In supplemental correspondence directed to this office following commencement of this appeal, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet Staff Attorney Emily Dennis acknowledged KSR's procedural errors, consisting of the failure to respond in writing and in a timely fashion to Mr. Cofer's request. Nevertheless, she maintained, KSR was not required to honor his request because it was improperly framed as a request for information. Relying on 02-ORD-88, Ms. Dennis asserted that "a request for information is outside the scope of open records law." Further, she noted, even if a list containing the requested information existed, "under KRS 197.025(2), the list would not be provided to an inmate because the list would not contain a specific reference to the inmate. " 2 As a courtesy, Ms. Dennis provided Mr. Cofer with a copy of his medical progress note dated January 13, 2004, referencing a fall down the stairs in front of the dining hall.
It is the decision of this office that, with the exception of the procedural errors which it has acknowledged, KSR did not violate the Open Records Act in the disposition of Mr. Cofer's request.
As Ms. Dennis correctly observes, the Attorney General has long recognized that a public agency is not statutorily obligated to honor a request for information as opposed to a request for specifically described public records. For example, in 93-ORD-51 this office held that the Open Records Act:
was not intended to provide a requester with particular "information," or to require public agencies to compile information to conform to the parameters of a given request. See, e.g., OAG 76-375; OAG 79-547; OAG 81-335, OAG 86-51; OAG 87-84; OAG 89-77; OAG 89-81; OAG 90-19; 99-ORD-71. Rather, the Law provides for inspection of reasonably identified records.
93-ORD-51, p. 3. Mirroring this view, in OAG 87-84 we observed:
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. The public has a right to inspect public documents and to obtain whatever information is contained in them but the primary impact of the Open Records Act is to make records available for inspection and copying and not to require the gathering and supplying of information.
OAG 87-84, p. 3. These decisions were premised on the language of the statutes themselves, including KRS 61.871 (providing that "free and open examination of public records is in the public interest"), KRS 61.872(1) (providing that "[a]ll public records shall be open for inspection by any person"), and KRS 61.872(2) (providing that "[a]ny person shall have the right to inspect public records") (emphasis added); see also 03-ORD-062. Based on the cited authorities, we conclude that KSR did not violate the Open Records Act in the belated disposition of Mr. Cofer'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.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 Mr. Cofer's request and inmate money transfer authorization are dated February 9, 2004. KSR maintains that his request was received on February 20, 2004. Neither Mr. Cofer nor KSR offer any explanation for this discrepancy.
2 Ms. Dennis also addressed Mr. Cofer's request for an occurrence report relating to an alleged January 3, 2004 "medical incident." Because Mr. Cofer did not request the report in his original open records application, this issue is not ripe for review in the instant appeal. See 04-ORD-059 (enclosed).