Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Michelle D. Harrison, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether Kentucky State Reformatory violated the Kentucky Open Records Act in denying James Lee Fields' February 28, 2012, request for "one (1) copy each of: The address to the Center for Orthotic & Prosthetics[,] the company that KSR utilizes to have lifts attached to shoes of inmates. " Mr. Fields initiated his appeal by letter dated March 8, 2012, alleging that "the Physical Therapy Treatment unit" at KSR is "deliberately denying" the request because of a grievance that he filed. Upon receiving notification of his appeal from this office, Assistant General Counsel Amy V. Barker responded on behalf of KSR, explaining that inmates at KSR must comply with CPP 6.1 when submitting a request and Mr. Fields did not. Mr. Fields addressed his request to "KSR Records Department/Physical Therapy" rather than KSR Records Custodian Marc Abelove or Medical Records Custodian Karen Vesty, both of whom denied receiving the request as did staff in the Physical Therapy Department. 1 However, even if Mr. Fields had complied with all requirements of CPP 6.1, Ms. Barker correctly observed, "it was a request for information rather than a request for records." Relying upon KRS 61.872(3)(b) and prior decisions by this office, Ms. Barker noted that public agencies do not have to honor such requests. 2 Nevertheless, KSR advised that Mr. Fields "may obtain the information he seeks by contacting his caseworker and requesting that the caseworker obtain the address for him." In closing, Ms. Barker also correctly asserted that an Open Records Appeal is not the proper forum in which to resolve other issues that Mr. Fields raised in his letter of appeal. See 99-ORD-121; 08-ORD-142. Based upon the following, this office affirms the agency's disposition of Mr. Fields' request.
In addressing the unique issues surrounding access to public records in this context, the Attorney General has long recognized:
An inmate in a correctional facility is uniquely situated with respect to the exercise of his rights under the Open Records Act. Although, as we have recently observed, "all persons have the same standing to inspect and receive copies of public records, and are subject to the same obligations for receipt thereof," an inmate's movements within the facility are presumably restricted . . . Accordingly, an inmate must accept the necessary consequences of his confinement, including policies relative to application for, and receipt of, public records.
95-ORD-105, p. 3, citing 94-ORD-90, p. 2. See also OAG 79-546; OAG 79-582; OAG 82-394; OAG 89-86; OAG 91-129; 92-ORD-1136.
When copies of public records are requested, "the custodian may require a written request and advance payment of the prescribed fee, including postage where appropriate." KRS 61.874(1). Neither this provision nor the remainder of the Open Records Act contains a waiver of this requirement for inmates. Accordingly, the Attorney General has previously held that correctional facilities like KSR are permitted to require prepayment of copying fees, and enforce standard policies regarding assessment of charges against inmate accounts, despite the delay in processing the request which might inevitably result. 95-ORD-105, p. 3. However, this holding has not been construed to authorize any type of delay beyond that which is reasonably necessary to ensure prepayment of copying charges. Id.
In 04-ORD-004, this office expressly upheld the validity of CPP 6.1. More specifically, the Attorney General affirmed the denial by Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex of the inmate request in question due to the failure of the inmate to provide the inmate identification information required by CPP 6.1, holding that the denial was "proper and consistent with its policies and procedures relating to inmate open records requests," as well as KRS 197.025(2), incorporated into the Open Records Act by operation of KRS 61.878(1)(l). 04-ORD-004, p. 3. Likewise, in 06-ORD-030, this office specifically upheld the provision of CPP 6.1 implicated therein ((B)(4)), which is apparently the provision upon which KSR is relying here. See 05-ORD-228; 06-ORD-078; 08-ORD-044; 08-ORD-157; 09-ORD-200; 11-ORD-047. The instant appeal presents no basis to depart from the reasoning contained in this line of decisions; a copy of 06-ORD-030 is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Inasmuch as the challenged policy "does not interfere, or threaten to interfere, with [Mr. Fields'] statutory right of access to nonexempt public records, " and is consistent with provisions of the Open Records Act, this office finds that KSR did not violate the Act by requiring compliance with it nor did KSR otherwise err in declining to comply with Mr. Fields' request for information.
Early on, this office clarified that "[t]he purpose of the Open Records Law is not to provide information, but to provide access to public records which are not exempt by law." OAG 79-547, p. 2; 04-ORD-144. Accordingly, the Attorney General has consistently held that "requests for information as opposed to requests for specifically described public records, need not be honored." 00-ORD-76, p. 3, citing OAG 76-375; 04-ORD-080. The analysis contained in 08-ORD-181 is controlling on this issue; a copy of that decision is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Simply put, KSR is not statutorily required to honor a request which is properly characterized as a request for information such as Mr. Fields' request for the specified address. 3
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:
James Lee Fields, # 187833Marc AbeloveAmy V. Barker
Footnotes
Footnotes