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, although its original response was deficient, Northpoint Training Center did not otherwise violate the Open Records Act in partially denying Aaron Hardin-Bey's request for a copy of "email sent to Ms. Eddington on 8/22/12 from Ms. Andrea Bentley pertaining to [his] 17.4 review." 1 Northpoint acknowledges its error in failing to identify the statutory basis for redacting one sentence from the two sentence email, belatedly invoking KRS 197.025(1) to support partial nondisclosure, but otherwise asserts that its response was procedurally 2 and substantively correct. We concur. In a line of decisions dating back to its enactment, the Attorney General has recognized that "the legislature has created a mechanism for prohibiting inmate access to otherwise nonexempt public records where disclosure of those records is deemed to constitute a threat to security." See, e.g., 96-ORD-209, p. 3. The statute thus provides:
KRS 61.870 to 61.884 to the contrary notwithstanding, no person shall have access to any records if the disclosure is deemed by the commissioner of the department or his designee to constitute a threat to the security of the inmate, any other inmate, correctional staff, the institution, or any other person.
It is incorporated into the Open Records Act by KRS 61.878(1)(l) which authorizes public agencies to withhold "[p]ublic records or information the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted or otherwise made confidential by enactment of the General Assembly." The referenced decisions are summarized in 10-ORD-005, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. These decisions support the reasoned exercise of agency discretion in denying access to all or part of a record whose disclosure is deemed to constitute a threat to security. Based on these authorities, we affirm Northpoint's partial denial of Mr. Hardin-Bey'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:
Aaron Hardin-Bey, # 163337Jennifer MayeAlea Amber Arnett
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 A CPP 17.4 review involves an inmate request for a review or explanation of the method of sentence calculation for his or her sentences. A written agency response is required by the corrections policy. At issue here is not the written agency response but an email relating to the 17.4 review.
2 KRS 197.025(7) extends the deadline for agency response in these cases to five days. It provides:
KRS 61.870 to 61.884 to the contrary notwithstanding, upon receipt of a request for any record, the department shall respond to the request within five (5) days after receipt of the request, excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, and state whether the record may be inspected or may not be inspected, or that the record is unavailable and when the record is expected to be available.