Opinion
Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the actions of the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (EKCC) relative to the open records requests of Tymothy Scott for information about the meter stamp machine at the institution violated the Open Records Act. For the reasons that follow, we find that, with the exception of a procedural deficiency, the EKCC did not violate the Open Records Act.
In his letter of appeal, Mr. Scott complained that the EKCC failed to respond to approximately ten open records requests involving meter stamp machine questions.
After receipt of notification of the appeal and a copy of the letter of appeal, Emily Dennis, Staff Attorney, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. In her response, Ms. Dennis explained:
First, Mr. Scott fails to demonstrate that the EKCC violated the Kentucky Open Records Act by failing to respond to a total of 10 open records requests regarding the meter stamp machine. His first request dated 07/21/05 states the following questions:
The EKCC open records coordinator received the above-referenced request on 07/22/2005. EKCC mail room supervisor Josie Williams responded to Mr. Scott's request on 07/25/2005 as follows:
Mr. Scott's 07/21/2005 request (received 07/22/2005) is clearly a request for information. As your office has recognized, the purpose of the Open Records Law is not to provide information but to provide access to public records which are not exempt by law. OAG 79-547. Requests for information are outside the scope of the open records law and an agency is not obligated to honor a request for information under the law. 02-ORD-88; KRS 61.870 et seq. In addition, if any records had existed that provided the information requested by Mr. Scott, he is not entitled to this information due to the provisions of KRS 197.025(2). KRS 197.025(2) states that the Department of Corrections is not required to comply with a request for any record from an 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 open records requests as an enactment of the General Assembly (See KRS 61.878(1)(l).
Mr. Scott's second request dated 07/30/05, stamped received by the open records coordinator as of 08/01/05, is also a request for information. [This request also sought information regarding the meter stamp machine] . To the extent that any records existed containing this information, the records would not contain a specific reference to Tymothy Scott. On 08/04/05, EKCC mail room worker Patricia F. Parks responded to Mr. Scott's request, "Supervisor is out of office, will return Aug. 8, 2005. Need to re-submit." The Department of Corrections admits that this response by Ms. Parks did not comply with the Kentucky Open Records Act. A correct response would have informed Mr. Scott that he had made a request for information. Once again, if any records contained the information he requested, the records would be exempt from disclosure to him since records of this type would not contain a specific reference to an inmate and are therefore exempt from disclosure under KRS 197.025(2). I have discussed with EKCC open records coordinator, Sharon Rose, the necessity to screen requests as they are received to see if the request is for information to which the requester would not be entitled to in the first place before sending a request to records custodians for processing. This way, EKCC may avoid a situation, such as this one, where the responses tend to confuse the requester.
We conclude that the actions of the EKCC did not violate the Open Records Act.
The Kentucky Open Records Act addresses requests for records, not requests for information. 03-ORD-028. At page 2 of 95-ORD-131, the Attorney General observed.
Requests for information, as distinguished from records, are outside of the scope of the open records provisions. See, e.g., OAG 89-77. Our position is premised on the notion that "[o]pen records provisions address only inspection of records . . . [and] do not require public agencies or officials to provide or compile specific information to conform to the parameters of a given request.
Mr. Scott's requests were clearly ones for information, rather than ones for a precisely described record. Accordingly, we find no error in the EKCC's response that a public agency is not required to honor a request for information under the Open Records Act and that the agency could properly have denied the requests on that ground.
Moreover, as noted in Ms. Dennis' response, even if Mr. Scott had requested a copy of records containing the information he was seeking, he would not have been provided the records, pursuant to KRS 197.025(2). That statute 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.
The language of KRS 197.025(2) requires that the records requested by the inmate "contain a specific reference to the [requesting inmate] ." (Emphasis added.) A copy of records containing information about the meter stamp machine at the institution would not specifically reference Mr. Scott. Accordingly, we find that EKCC could properly have denied a request for such records under KRS 197.025(2), because they would not contain a specific reference to him. 03-ORD-305.
In his letter of appeal, Mr. Scott asserts that the EKCC failed to respond to approximately ten open records requests. The EKCC states that Mr. Scott failed to demonstrate that such was the case. 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.
Insufficient information is presented in this appeal for this office to resolve the factual dispute concerning whether Mr. Scott submitted "approximately ten (10)" open records requests and the EKCC failed to respond to them. See 03-ORD-061.
Finally, the Department acknowledged that the EKCC's response to Mr. Scott's 07/30/2005 request did not comply with the Open Records Act in that it should have advised him that he had made a request for information. The Department advised that it had taken steps to correct situations such as this by explaining to the EKCC open records personnel the proper response to requests for information. Accordingly, we will not belabor the point here.
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.