Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Office of the Attorney General violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of Eric Cunningham's request for records relating to his child support obligations and proof of income. Mr. Cunningham's request was dated January 22, 2010, but did not reach the Office of the Attorney General until January 27, 2010. That Office promptly issued its response on February 1, 2010, agreeing to provide Mr. Cunningham with copies of all records in its possession that are responsive to the request upon prepayment of copying and postage charges in the amount of $ 3.70. The Office of the Attorney General did not violate the Open Records Act in the disposition of Mr. Cunningham's request.
KRS 61.874(1) clearly states that "[w]hen copies are requested, the custodian may require a written request and advance payment of the prescribed fee, including postage where appropriate." See also, KRS 61.872(3)(b). Although Mr. Cunningham's request was framed as one seeking inspection of the records, he is currently housed at Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex and is therefore foreclosed from exercising the right of onsite inspection. At page 4 of 95-ORD-105, this office recognized that "an inmate must accept the necessary consequences of his confinement" and that "[o]bviously, an inmate cannot exercise the right of onsite inspection at public agencies other than the facility in which he is housed. " A copy of that decision is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
In the same open records decision this office recognized that KRS 61.874(1) and KRS 61.872(3)(b) "contain no provision for waiver of the prepayment requirement for inmates, " and that it is "entirely proper for [agency] to enforce its standard policy relative to assessment of [reproduction and postage charges]." This position has been confirmed in numerous open records decisions over time. See, most recently, 10-ORD-033 (copy enclosed). Accordingly, we find that the Office of the Attorney General did not violate the Open Records Act in the disposition of Mr. Cunningham's request, and that it fully discharged its duties under the Act in agreeing to mail him copies of responsive records upon prepayment of reproduction and postage charges.
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.
Eric Cunningham, # 1511167-CL-10Charles WilliamsonTad Thomas