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 the Department of Corrections violated the Open Records Act in denying Thomas Baldwin's May 3, 2004 request for a copy of "[a] letter written to Tom Campbell (Commissioner) on July 9, 2001, from Damon Whitehead 146383 concerning water leaks into the living area (cubes) at Marion Adjustment Center . . . and a copy of Mr. Campbell's reply." Although the question presented in this appeal is a close one, we affirm the Department's denial of Mr. Baldwin's request.
On behalf of the Department, Karen DeFew Cronen, Branch Manager of Offender Information Services, denied Mr. Baldwin's request in a letter dated May 10, 2004. She advised:
KRS 197.025(2) states that the Department of Corrections is not required to comply with a request for any record from any inmate confined in any facility unless the request is for a record that contains a specific reference to that individual. KRS 197.025(2) applies to your request as an enactment of the General Assembly (see KRS 61.878(1)(l)).
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Baldwin initiated this appeal, attaching a copy of the requested letter and explaining:
I need a copy that's been file stamped, and with Mr. Whitehead's signature on it. As you can see, the copy I kept was never signed by Mr. Whitehead. This letter was typed by myself as we were roommates in the cube where the water leaked. I was in Bed #503 and he was in Bed #502.
He questioned the Department of Corrections' reliance on the cited statutes, noting that he had been unable to research the Department's claim owing to deficiencies in the law library at the facility in which he is confined.
In supplemental correspondence directed to this office following commencement of Mr. Baldwin's appeal, Emily Dennis, Staff Attorney for the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, reaffirmed the Department's position. She maintained that the Department properly relied on KRS 197.025(2), precluding inmate access to a public record unless the record contains a specific reference to the requesting inmate, and concluded that "Mr. Baldwin is not entitled to a copy of a letter written by a fellow state inmate to the Commissioner or the Commissioner's response." While we affirm the Department's denial of Mr. Baldwin's request, based on a strict interpretation of KRS 197.025(2), we note that the question on appeal is a very close one.
As amended in 2002, KRS 197.025(2) provides:
KRS 61.872 to the contrary notwithstanding, the department shall not be required to comply with a request for any record from any inmate confined in a jail or any facility or any individual on active supervision under the jurisdiction of the department, unless the request is for a record which contains a specific reference to that individual.
In construing this provision, the Attorney General has observed:
That provision previously authorized correctional facilities to withhold records from an inmate unless the records "pertain[ed] to that [inmate] ."
The language of KRS 197.025(2) has since been narrowed to require that the records requested by the inmate "contain a specific reference to the [requesting inmate] ." (Emphasis added.) The net effect of this amendment has been to further curtail the inmate's right of access to records maintained by the Department of Corrections and correctional facilities . . . .
03-ORD-73, p. 3; see also 03-ORD-003; 03-ORD-074. This is the statutory standard by which we assess the propriety of the agency's denial of an inmate's open records request on the basis of KRS 197.025(2), and under this standard Mr. Baldwin's claim fails.
Nevertheless, we have recognized that "there may be occasions when we presented with a close[] issue," 98-ORD-150, p. 3, and this is just such an occasion. Mr. Baldwin indicates that he and Mr. Whitehead were roommates at Marion Adjustment Center, occupying Beds 502 and 503. Mr. Baldwin enclosed an unsigned copy of Mr. Whitehead's letter referencing "[m]y cube mate." While this is not a "specific reference" to Mr. Baldwin within the strict contemplation of KRS 197.025(2), it is clearly a direct reference to him, and we fail to see how the purpose underlying KRS 197.025(2) is served by nondisclosure of the requested record, especially in light of the fact that Mr. Baldwin is familiar with the record's content. 1
Lest we "open the door to . . . tenuous claims thereby subverting the intent of the recent enactment," 98-ORD-150, p. 3, we affirm the Department of Correction's denial of Mr. Baldwin's request, but urge the Department to review its position relative to KRS 197.025(2) to insure that no inmate is denied access to a record based on a narrowing legalistic interpretation of that statute.
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.
Distributed to:
Thomas Baldwin, #143889 W2-4Bell County Forestry CampRoute 2, Box 75Pineville, KY 40977
John D. Rees, CommissionerJustice & Public Safety Cabinet2439 Lawrenceburg RoadP.O. Box 2400Frankfort, KY 40602-2400
Karen DeFew CronenDepartment of CorrectionsOffender Information Services Branch2439 Lawrenceburg RoadP.O. Box 2400Frankfort, KY 40602-2400
Emily DennisDepartment of CorrectionsOffice of General Counsel2439 Lawrenceburg RoadP.O. Box 2400Frankfort, KY 40602-2400
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 These observations may or may not extend to the Commissioner's response to Mr. Whitehead's letter. It is unclear whether the Department attempted to locate this letter, and if so, whether it contained a specific reference to Mr. Baldwin or, as is in Mr. Whitehead's letter, a direct reference to Mr. Baldwin. Unless the Department has located the letter from the Commissioner to Mr. Whitehead and determined that it contains no specific reference to Mr. Baldwin, it has not fully discharged its legal obligations under the Act.