Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; James M. Herrick, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the Marion Adjustment Center ("MAC") violated the Open Records Act in responding to certain open records requests made by inmate Winston Wright. The chronology of Mr. Wright's requests is as follows.
On October 12, 2012, Mr. Wright submitted three open records request forms to the MAC. The first was to inspect "rules that super[sede] R.D.A.P. resident handbook that states. Quote 'Learning experiences are not given for an awareness notice' end quote. PG 37 Awar[e]ness notice section. Last Line." The second was to inspect "rules and or guidelines for genuine concern given by staff for awar[e]ness notice towards unknown residents: please include rules super[se]ding RDAP resident handbook that states only staff can write 'behavior notices'. " The third was to inspect "Applicant license renewal for R.D.A.P. program located at the minimum security section of the Marion Adjustment Center. Including exp[i]ration date and date of license renewal. " All three of these requests were received on October 12, 2012. The common disposition of all three, dated October 18, 2012, read as follows:
I have reviewed your record requests and, at this time, I must decline to provide any responsive records to the extent that such records exist.
It is not clear exactly what you are requesting, but to the extent that you are requesting "guidelines" regarding various programs and services," [ sic ] it does not appear that you are requesting any records, which would contain a specific reference to you. Under Kentucky law, correctional personnel are not required to provide records in response to an inmate's public record request unless the records "contain[] a specific reference to that [inmate] ." See KRS sec 197.025(2).
The program's license that you make reference [to] has always been available for viewing as it is posted in the unit.
Although these three requests and the common response are attached to Mr. Wright's appeal, we lack jurisdiction to review the October 18, 2012, disposition. KRS 197.025(3) provides: "KRS 61.870 to 61.884 to the contrary notwithstanding, all persons confined in a penal facility shall challenge any denial of an open record with the Attorney General by mailing or otherwise sending the appropriate documents to the Attorney General within twenty (20) days of the denial pursuant to the procedures set out in KRS 61.880(2) before an appeal can be filed in a Circuit Court." Mr. Wright's appeal was dated December 9, 2012, which was not within the statutory 20-day period. See 08-ORD-209; 07-ORD-058.
On November 20, 2012, Mr. Wright made two additional open records requests, which were received the following day. The first was for "Copies of and Response to all open records request [ sic ] directed to Marion Adjustment Center between Oct. 1, 2012 and Oct. 31, 2012." The disposition, dated November 28, 2012, states: "Documents forwarded. " Mr. Wright's second request was for "Copies of and Response to 4 open records request [ sic ] submitted to R.D.A.P. case worker directed to Acting S.A.P. administrator dated Sept. 19, 2012, Sept. 20, 2012, Sept. 21, 2012 and Sept. 22, 2012." The disposition on November 28, 2012, states: "These are already being forwarded to you in another request response. The requests directed toward SAP staff were in October; not September."
Mr. Wright's appeal of these two dispositions is timely under KRS 197.025(3). He does not dispute the assertion that the records he requested were from October rather than September. Rather, his letter states as follows:
I'm Appealing the decision to not fulfill my open records request.
According to various staff memembers [ sic ]. There ranges between 99 and 150 unwritten rules the [ sic ] pertain to the S.A.P. program at this institution.
I've been granted parole upon completion of S.A.P. Been terminated from participation prior to being accepted into active program[m]ing for violating unwritten rules. Of which, just by requesting copy of same, was informed by Ms. Rice, acting S.A.P. administrator. That I would not complete program if I was going to be "technical."
I cannot go to outside court without exhausting institutional remedies. But S.A.P. person[n]el openly lie about providing legitimate copies of all rules. And institution refuses to enforce open records request. If a person is in the program, or has to attend the same program. How can his request for All rules & guidelines including unwritten rules that are common practice to the program be denied.
Furthermore, R.D.A.P. administrator Ms. Rice. Blatantly refuses to consider or answer any records request period and refuses acceptance of same. Therefore, I'm requesting that your office order compliance and provide All rules (written and unwritten) and guidelines that pertain to a program that is recommended and or required to p[a]rticipate in to myself. Furthermore, I request further information on how to rec[o]up fines and or penalties for violation of open records request laws. Especially since R.D.A.P. program answers No Open Records Request as of this date Dec. 9, 2012[.]
This complaint appears to relate entirely to Mr. Wright's October 12 requests to inspect rules and guidelines, not to the November 20 requests concerning which he has timely appealed. The matters he asserts are outside the scope of this appeal under KRS 197.025(3).
We therefore can only consider the merits of the MAC's November 28 response and conclude that Mr. Wright was provided with all the copies he requested on November 20, 2012. Accordingly, we find no violation of the Act in the November 28, 2012, disposition of Mr. Wright's 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:
Winston Wright, # 102720Amy V. Barker, Esq.Cole Carter, Esq.