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 Kentucky State Penitentiary did not violate the Open Records Act in the disposition of Juan Sanders' March 14 and March 20, 2012, requests for a copy of the "budget for payroll for Prison Industries per inmate/ KSP inmate. " Because Mr. Sanders failed to adhere to corrections policies relating to submission of, and payment for, open records requests, KSP was not obligated to honor his March 14 request. Because the requested record did not "contain a specific reference to" Mr. Sanders, KSP was not obligated to honor his March 20 request.
KSP issued a timely written response to each of Mr. Sanders' requests, advising him, in the first instance, that his request did not conform to Corrections Policy and Procedure 6.1 insofar as it was not routed through the open records coordinator and the accompanying "Cash Paid Out" was not verified by a designated staff member. KSP also issued a timely response to his second request, advising him that KRS 197.025(2) precludes him from inspecting the budget because it contains no reference to him. On appeal, Mr. Sanders contests KSP's position, arguing that the record "appl[ies] to [him] because [he] did work for P.I. Garment Plant . . . ."
In supplemental correspondence, KSP explains the rationale supporting the referenced CPP. Mr. Sanders received a copy of that response, and we will not repeat it here. With reference to the disputed record, KSP explains that "the KSP budget for inmate labor consists of one line item and . . . [contains] no reference to any specific inmate . . . ." Its denial of each of his requests is fully supported by existing authority.
On several occasions the Attorney General has approved a correctional facility's denial of an inmate records request where the inmate fails to adhere to corrections policies and procedures as long as those policies and procedures do not "purport to add a requirement not found in the statutes." Commonwealth v. Chestnut, 250 S.W.3d 655, 662 (Ky. 2008). In 10-ORD-019, for example, we affirmed a facility's routing system for inmate records requests. The Attorney General identified specific legal authority (KRS 197.075(4)) supporting the corrections policy (CPP 6.1), concluding that the policy did "not amend, alter, enlarge, or limit the terms of the Act but [was], instead, supported by KRS 197.025(4) . . . ." 10-ORD-019, p. 3 (copy enclosed). This decision is dispositive of the issues on appeal arising from Mr. Sanders' March 14 request.
The Attorney General has also consistently approved a correctional facility's reliance on KRS 197.025(2) to deny an inmate request for records that do not contain a specific reference to the requesting inmate. In 03-ORD-073, for example, we upheld the facility's denial of an inmate request for a Corrections Department memorandum relating to work performed by inmates diagnosed with hepatitis, reasoning that the "net effect of the requirement that the requested record contain [a specific reference to the requesting inmate] has been to further curtail the inmate's right of access to records maintained by the Department of Corrections" and, in this case, Kentucky State Penitentiary. 03-ORD-073, p. 3. It is by this statutory standard, and not the "applies to [the requesting inmate] " standard Mr. Sanders suggests, that we assess the propriety of KSP's actions. Under that statutory standard, its denial of his request for the payroll budget for prison industries was proper inasmuch as that record contains no "specific reference" to Mr. Sanders or any other inmate. We therefore affirm KSP's denial of both his March 14 and March 20 requests.
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:
Juan Sanders, # 131019Travis BradleyTeresa PetersAmy V. Barker