Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; James M. Herrick, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Lee Adjustment Center ("LAC") violated the Kentucky Open Records Act in its disposition of the request of inmate Eric Daley to inspect a contract between the Corrections Corporation of America ("CCA") and a private vendor known as Video Access. We conclude that the actions of the LAC were in accordance with the Act.
Mr. Daley made a written request dated January 8, 2009, to inspect "[t]he contract between CCA & Video Access Games. Our current videogame vendor. " The LAC's reply came in the form of a memorandum from Bobby Moore of the LAC Records Department dated the same day, which read:
Please be advised that your request is denied per CPP 6.1 VI (B) and KRS 197.025(2).
To inspect contract between CCA/LAC and Video Access-KRS 197.025(2) states that CCA/LAC is not 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. Therefore, CCA/LAC is not required to allow inmates to inspect the contract between CCA/LAC and Video Access.
Mr. Daley's appeal was dated January 19, 2009, and received by this office on January 29, 2009.
In his appeal, Mr. Daley states in part:
I am trying to review this contract because the prices that this vendor is charging us for video games is [sic] completely absurd. Almost everything they sell us is 120-150% mark-up from what people not in prison pay. ?
?
As far as I can tell if the contract says anything about selling products to general population through a non-facility vendor, that is in reference to myself and all other inmates on this compound that spend th[ei]r money at this vendor.
The LAC replies, per CCA Operations Assistant General Counsel Cole Carter, that under KRS 197.025(2) Mr. Daley is not entitled to view the contract because it does not mention him by name. In light of this office's past decisions, we agree.
Although CCA, which operates the LAC, is a private corporation, KRS 197.025(2) applies to it no less than to the Department of Corrections. 04-ORD-205. That subsection provides as follows:
KRS 61.870 to 61.884 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 Attorney General has consistently interpreted this provision as supporting CCA/LAC's position that only documents mentioning the inmate by name need be provided. 05-ORD-130; 03-ORD-073; 99-ORD-157; 98-ORD-150. Since the facility's contract with Video Access presumably does not and would not mention Mr. Daley specifically, KRS 197.025(2) is dispositive of this appeal and the LAC properly denied inspection of the record.
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 proceedings.