Opinion
Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the Luther Luckett Correctional Complex (LLCC) violated the Open Records Act in its disposition of the request of James George, Jr. to inspect certain records maintained by LLCC. We conclude that LLCC's rejection of Mr. George's request, for failure to comply with the Department of Correction's policy in submitting his open records request, as required by 501 KAR 6:020, Corrections Policy and Procedure (CPP) 6.1, did not violate the Act.
On February 16, 2006, Mr. George, an inmate currently housed at Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex, submitted an open records request to LLCC to inspect the "Adjustment Hearing Tape from (12-07-05) Tape 4246 Side; A 122 @ 9:00." He also requested to be contacted on the price for the records and advised that this was his second attempt to obtain these records. In his letter of appeal, Mr. George indicated that the actions of the LLCC did not fully comply with the Open Records Act.
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 advised, in relevant part:
I contacted LLCC open records coordinator, Charlene Hoke, to verify the information provided by Mr. George to the Office of the Attorney General. Ms. Hoke stated that LLCC had, in fact received the request from Mr. George, however, due to Mr. George's failure to comply with provisions of CPP 6.1, his request was rejected as unanswerable.
In support of the position that LLCC properly rejected Mr. George's request because he failed to submit his request in compliance with Kentucky Department of Corrections open records policy, Ms. Dennis explained:
Pursuant to 501 KAR 6:020, Corrections Policy and Procedure (CPP) 6.1, an inmate is required to mail, by first class, regular mail to the custodian of the agency's records, an open records request including the following identification information of the inmate requester: (1) the inmate's name and institution number; (2) the inmate's cell, room or housing assignment; and (3) a reasonably particular description of the record being requested. If an inmate specifically requests copies of records, the inmate is also required to submit an Authorization to Use Inmate Account Form. The responsibilities of the open records coordinator of an institution include as follows: (1) Date stamp and log in all requests upon receipt; (2) immediately forward the request to the custodian for a response; and (3) ensure that all responses are recorded on the log sheet in a timely manner. The coordinator is not, however, responsible for responding to the request, unless the coordinator is the custodian of the requested record.
The requirement that an inmate submit an open records request via institutional or first class mail (versus hand delivery) to the open records coordinator exists so that prison authorities can maintain order and security in the institutional setting. See KRS 197.025(1) and KRS 197.025(4) . The safety and security of a prison are well-recognized, legitimate penological interests . . . .
Ms. Dennis further explained that in the instant case, Ms. Hoke received a request from Mr. George with insufficient identification information to verify the inmate's identity from the face of his request and, to the extent that he requested copies of records he failed to submit the required Authorization to Use Inmate Account Form in order to pay for the requested records. Ms. Dennis argued that since Mr. George had failed to comply with CPP 6.1 in submitting the request, the agency properly rejected the request.
We are asked to determine whether LLCC's rejection of Mr. George'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 supplemental response, 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. LLCC denied Mr. George'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 LLCC's rejection of Mr. George's open records request due to the failure to comply with the policies and procedures relating to inmate open records requests did not violate the Open Records Act. 04-ORD-004.
Moreover, 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. Citing KRS 197.025(1) 1 and KRS 197.025 (4) 2, the Department explained that inmates are required to submit open records requests by first class, regular or institutional mail to the Open Records Coordinator "so that prison authorities can maintain order and security in the institutional setting." In a proper exercise of its discretion, the Department adopted 501 KAR 6:020, CPP 6.1.VI.B.2., requiring an inmate to forward his request by institutional mail to the Open Records Coordinator, for the legitimate purpose of maintaining order and security at institutions such as LLCC. Our office has consistently recognized that KRS 197.025(1) vests the commissioner or his designee with broad discretion in determining when a threat is posed to the safety and security of the inmates, staff and institution. 03-ORD-190, p. 5. 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. In short, the actions of LLCC relative to Mr. George' request did not violate the Open Records Act. 05-ORD-228.
If he has not already done so, Mr. George would need to resubmit his open records request in compliance with 501 KAR 6:020, Corrections Policy and Procedure (CPP) 6.1, as set out above, including the appropriate inmate identification information, in order to access the records he seeks.
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 KRS 197.025(1) provides:
KRS 61.884 and 61.878 to the contrary notwithstanding, no person shall have access to any records if the disclosure is deemed by the commissioner of the department or his designee to constitute a threat to the security of the inmate, any other inmate, correctional staff, the institution, or any other person.
2 KRS 197.025(4) provides:
KRS 61.872 to the contrary notwithstanding, the Department of Corrections shall refuse to accept the hand delivery of an open records request from a confined inmate.