Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; James M. Herrick, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
This matter having been presented to the Attorney General in an open records appeal, and the Attorney General being sufficiently advised, we find that the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG), Division of Community Corrections, did not violate the Open Records Act in denying Fayette County Detention Center inmate Robert L. Polk's August 14, 2011, request for copies of policies and procedures, complaints or grievances, and some of his own medical records. On August 16, 2011, the LFUCG Division of Community Corrections responded that Mr. Polk had a debit of $ 123.18 in his inmate account, and consequently denied the copies because Mr. Polk had insufficient funds to cover the costs.
Mr. Polk's appeal was received on August 31, 2011. Michael R. Sanner, Attorney Senior, responded on behalf of the LFUCG on September 8, 2011, additionally arguing that under KRS 197.025(2) 1 Mr. Polk is not entitled to view the requested records, other than his medical records, because they contain no specific reference to him. We agree with this analysis and find that 03-ORD-150 is dispositive of the issue on appeal. A copy of this open records decision is attached and hereby adopted as the basis for our decision in the present appeal.
Furthermore, the reasoning contained in 08-ORD-044, a copy of which is likewise attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is equally applicable on the facts presented. The courts and this office have recognized the propriety of a policy requiring advance payment of copying fees. In Friend v. Rees, Ky. App., 696 S.W.2d 325 (1985), the Kentucky Court of Appeals held that an inmate is entitled to receive a copy of a record only after "complying with the reasonable charge of reproduction. " Accordingly, the Attorney General subsequently determined that it is "entirely proper for [a correctional] facility to require prepayment, and to enforce its standard policy relative to assessment of charges to inmate accounts ...." 95-ORD-105. While acknowledging that "this prepayment policy might work a hardship on inmates, " this office has nevertheless upheld the policy as "entirely consistent with the Open Records Act and the rule announced in Friend v. Rees. " 97-ORD-131 (quoting 95-ORD-90, p. 2). Because the Open Records Act does not exempt indigent requesters from the requirement for payment of copying fees codified at KRS 61.874(1) , the Division did not violate the Open Records Act in denying Mr. Polk's request.
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.
Distributed to:
Robert L. PolkJames J. KammerMichael R. Sanner, Esq.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 KRS 197.025(2) provides:
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.
This statute is applicable to the Division of Community Corrections. 05-ORD-055; 03-ORD-150.