Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, 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 because Green River Correctional Complex partially denied Donald R. Phillips' September 30, 2011, request for copies of "legal mail logs for September 28th and 29th, 2011," by redacting all entries except those specifically relating to Mr. Phillips, it did not moot the issue presented in his October 17 open records appeal. Because GRCC withheld entries relating to other inmates, its response violated KRS 61.880(1) insofar as it did not identify the statutory basis for withholding these entries. Because GRCC's response was not issued within five days of receipt, the response violated KRS 197.025(7).
In correspondence directed to the Attorney General after Mr. Phillips initiated this appeal, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet counsel acknowledged that GRCC's response was not issued in a timely fashion, explaining that the delay was "inadvertent" and attributable to the volume of open records requests the facility receives. Nevertheless, the Cabinet advised, GRCC "provided the documents" to Mr. Phillips on October 19. In support, the Cabinet attached a copy of Mr. Phillips' request bearing a stamped "disposition" which stated:
Requested copies enclosed.
This disposition serves as your receipt.
The "disposition" was signed by Theresa Shanklin, GRCC records officer. On November 17, 2011, Ms. Shanklin advised us that all entries except those relating to the requester were redacted from legal mail logs before the logs are released.
Mr. Phillips did not request only those entries on the September 28 and 29 legal mail log that relate to him. Although he may have been satisfied with those entries, his request was broader in scope. And although he may have been statutorily foreclosed from reviewing the remaining entries, he was entitled to a written response reflecting the partial denial of his request and containing a statement of the exceptions authorizing nondisclosure. KRS 61.880(1). As this office recently noted, "Pursuant to 40 KAR 1:030 Section 6, a records access dispute is mooted after the requester initiates an open records appeal only if the requested documents are made available to him." 11-ORD-189, p. 3. Mr. Phillips received only a portion of the requested documents, and the issue on appeal was not mooted by partial disclosure.
GRCC's response violated KRS 197.025(7) insofar as it was not issued within five business days of receipt. The seriousness of this one day delay was compounded by the unexplained delay in the transmission of Mr. Philips' request, dated September 30, to GRCC Offender Records on October 7. Unless this delay was attributable, in whole or in part, to Mr. Phillips' inaction, it is incumbent on GRCC to streamline its open records process to insure that its five business day response time is not improperly extended by an additional seven days. If Mr. Phillips was responsible for delay, we assign error to GRCC only to the extent of the one business day delay it acknowledges.
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:
Donald R. Phillips, # 149748Teresa ShanklinAmy V. Barker