Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether Northpoint Training Center violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of Howard Cobb's March 27, 2009, request for copies of "the inventory list that was received from EKCC on or around 3-14, 2009." For the reasons that follow, we affirm NTC's disposition of Mr. Cobb's request.
In a response dated March 30, 2009, NTC Office Support Assistant Donna Lamb notified Mr. Cobb that NTC did "not have any paperwork from EKCC," and that it had only those records generated when NTC "processed him in." On appeal, Mr. Cobb challenges these statements asserting that disparities exist between inventory lists in his possession that suggest that "'somebody' kept the items of real value to include [his] $ 40.00 in cash."
In supplemental correspondence directed to this office following commencement of Mr. Cobb's appeal, NTC expanded on its position through Justice and Public Safety Cabinet counsel. NTC explained:
[C]ounsel spoke with the supervisor in the inmate property office and learned that NTC only has two documents that were created by NTC staff: 1) dated 3/9/09 for the property that arrived with Mr. Cobb at NTC and 2) dated 3/16/09 for property sent from EKCC. The response to the records request complied with the Open Records Act since NTC did not have the requested record and directed him to the expected location of the record. If Mr. Cobb is seeking either of the above identified records rather than records from EKCC, then he may submit another request form with this information in compliance with CPP 6.1.
We find no error in NTC's disposition of Mr. Cobb's request.
In a timely written response, NTC advised Mr. Cobb that it maintained only an inventory list that was generated the time of his arrival and an inventory list that was generated when his property was sent from EKCC. Mr. Cobb provides no proof that NTC maintains additional inventory lists. Under these circumstances, NTC's disposition of Mr. Cobb's request must be analyzed under the rule announced in Bowling v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, 172 S.W.3d 333 (Ky. 2005).
In 07-ORD-188, the Attorney General applied the Bowling rule to an appeal arising under facts similar to the facts before us, namely, a requester asserting the existence of additional responsive records in the agency's custody and an agency denying same. A copy of 07-ORD-188 is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Here, as in 07-ORD-188, we find that in the absence of a prima facie showing that additional inventory lists reside in NTC's custody we must affirm NTC's disposition of Mr. Cobb's request. Mr. Cobb is, of course, free to submit a new request to NTC as suggested.
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.
Howard Cobb, # 145682 D-6Donna LambAndrea WindsorAmy V. Barker