Request By:
Wendell Hale, # 094893
Teresa Shanklin
Leigh K. Meredith
Amy V. Barker
Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Michelle D. Harrison, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
At issue in this appeal is whether Green River Correctional Complex violated the Kentucky Open Records Act in denying Wendell Hale's request for the "name and address of the corporate entity designated as healthcare provider for inmates with the Ky. Dept. of Correction[s]" and the "name and address of corporate entity's managing agent &/or corporate representative acting on [its] behalf within the Commonwealth of Kentucky." In a timely written response, GRCC Records Custodian Teresa Shanklin denied Mr. Hale's request for information "in accordance with CPP 6.1 II, D, 3. which states 'A request for information shall be denied.'" Citing KRS 197.025(2), Ms. Shanklin further advised Mr. Hale that he "may only request records that have a specific reference" to him. Because GRCC is correct on both counts, the denial is affirmed in accordance with prior decisions of this office.
By letter dated August 1, 2008, Mr. Hale initiated this appeal from the denial of his request. Upon receiving notification of Mr. Hale's appeal from this office, Assistant General Counsel Amy V. Barker, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, responded on behalf of GRCC. Citing 07-ORD-065, 07-ORD-006, 03-ORD-028, and 95-ORD-131, Ms. Barker correctly argues that GRCC's response did not violate the Open Records Act "since Mr. Hale's request was clearly phrased as a request for information, and the Act does not require public agencies to perform research, compile information, or create records in response to a given request. An agency is not required to honor a request for information." Relying upon 08-ORD-122, 07-ORD-193, 04-ORD-276, and 04-ORD-205, Ms. Barker further notes that GRCC also correctly asserted "that an inmate is not entitled to a record that does not contain a specific reference to the inmate pursuant to KRS 197.025(2)[,]" incorporated into the Open Records Act by operation of KRS 61.878(1)(l). According to Ms. Barker, even if Mr. Hale "had properly requested a precisely described record, the type of record containing the information sought is not likely to contain a specific reference to Mr. Hale." In closing, Ms. Barker notes that Mr. Hale is "also incorrect about KRS Chapter 197" insofar as the Department of Corrections "may determine that a security risk prevents the release of a record to an inmate, but the Chapter does not require release as asserted by Mr. Hale. KRS 197.025(1)." Consistent with governing precedents, the agency's denial is affirmed in its entirety.
Early on, this office clarified that "[t]he 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, p. 2; 04-ORD-144. Accordingly, the Attorney General has consistently held that "requests for information as opposed to requests for specifically described public records, need not be honored." 00-ORD-76, p. 3, citing OAG 76-375; 04-ORD-080. In addressing this issue, the Attorney General has often recognized:
Obviously information will be obtained from an inspection of the records and documents but the duty imposed upon public agencies under the Act is to make public documents available for inspection and copying. 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 [nonexempt] 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.
04-ORD-080, p. 13, citing OAG 87-84. See also OAG 90-19; OAG 89-81; OAG 89-77.
Simply put, "what the public gets is what . . . [the public agency has] and in the format in which . . . [the agency has] it." Id. p. 5, OAG 91-12, p. 5. A review of the statutory language upon which these decisions are premised, 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), validates this position. To summarize, GRCC is not statutorily required to honor a request which is properly characterized as a request for information such as the request made by Mr. Hale. In our view, the analysis contained in 07-ORD-042 is controlling on this issue; a copy of that decision is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
Although public agencies are normally required to make any non-exempt records that may contain the information sought available for inspection, KRS 197.025(2) expressly authorizes correctional facilities within the jurisdiction of the DOC, such as GRCC, to deny a request by an inmate unless the record(s) contain a specific reference to that inmate. Regardless of the hardship he may believe that application of KRS 197.025(2) imposes, Mr. Hale is expressly precluded from gaining access to records which do not contain a specific reference to him by the mandatory language of this provision; accordingly, GRCC was justified in denying his request for the name and contact information of the "corporate entity designated as healthcare provider" for inmates and its agent or representative, even if his request had been properly framed. With regard to application of KRS 197.025(2), incorporated into the Open Records Act by operation of KRS 61.878(1)(l), the instant appeal presents no reason to depart from prior decisions of this office such as 04-ORD-076, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
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.