10-ORD-228
December 14, 2010
In re: Alger Ferguson/Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex
Summary: Decision adopting 04-ORD-076 and 03-ORD-073; Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex properly relied upon KRS 197.025(2), incorporated into the Open Records Act by operation of KRS 61.878(1)(l), in denying the inmate’s request for inmate canteen records because such records do not contain a specific reference to him.
Open Records Decision
At issue in this appeal is whether Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex violated the Kentucky Open Records Act1 in denying inmate Alger Ferguson’s November 9, 2010, request for a “copy of EKCC [sic] [i]nmate [c]anteen disbursement [o]verview[,] especially one that includes all departments receiving money from Inmate Canteen Fund and the lump amount allocated to each department for the fiscal year 2011.” In a timely written response, Sonya Wright, Open Records Coordinator, correctly advised Mr. Ferguson that he was not entitled to a copy of the inmate canteen disbursement overview under KRS 197.025(2), incorporated into the Open Records Act by operation of KRS 61.878(1)(l), because that record does not contain a specific reference to him. Upon receiving notification of Mr. Ferguson’s appeal, Amy V. Barker, Assistant General Counsel for the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, reiterated that “[t]he inmate canteen financial records requested are not the type of record in which a specific reference would be made to Mr. Ferguson.” Quoting the language of KRS 197.025(2), Ms. Barker correctly argued that the “Department of Corrections is not obligated to provide copies of records when they do not contain a specific reference to the inmate who requests the record(s). The Attorney General’s Office has held that 04-ORD-076 and 03-ORD-073 are controlling on this issue.”2 EKCC and Ms. Barker are correct on all counts.
The instant appeal presents no basis for departing from the cited authorities. As the Attorney General has consistently recognized, KRS 197.025(2) expressly authorizes correctional facilities like EKCC to deny a request by an inmate unless the record(s) contains a specific reference to that inmate. Because the record(s) at issue do not contain a specific reference to Mr. Ferguson, as required by the language of KRS 197.025(2), he is not entitled to inspect or to receive copies of those records, notwithstanding his underlying concerns. Regardless of the hardship Mr. Ferguson may believe that application of KRS 197.025(2) imposes, he 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, EKCC properly relied upon KRS 197.025(2), incorporated into the Open Records Act by operation of KRS 61.878(1)(l), in denying his request. 99-ORD-161, p. 2. See also 07-ORD-219.
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.
Jack Conway
Attorney General
Michelle D. Harrison
Assistant Attorney General
Distributed to:
Alger Ferguson, #194709
Sonya Wright
Amy V. Barker
[1] Although Mr. Ferguson cited the Freedom of Information Act in his appeal, it “has no force as to state records, only the records of [a] federal agency.” 96-ORD-244, p. 2 (citation omitted). Nor does the federal Privacy Act, which Mr. Ferguson also cited.
[2] Ms. Barker further advised that Mr. Ferguson “may review an inmate canteen financial statement in the library at his institution.”