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 Reformatory did not violate the Open Records Act in denying Tommy Southard's February 11, 2013, request for "[a] copy of the C.P.T.U. Inmate Roster for 1-17-13 showing all inmates in [KSR]." KSR promptly notified Mr. Southard that no "C.P.T.U. Inmate Roster" exists and that his request could not be honored, thereby discharging its duties under the Act. On appeal, Mr. Southard acknowledged that he requested an "inmate roster, but it is technically called the Unit E Bedboard that is made every day," asserting that KSR "knew exactly what [he] was talking about" but was "just trying to stall." He offers no proof to support this claim and nothing in the record on appeal suggests that this was the case. We therefore assign no error to KSR for its inability to produce a nonexistent record. OAG 82-234; 09-ORD-178; Bowling v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, 172 S.W.3d 333 (Ky. 2005).
KRS 61.872(2) required Mr. Southard to submit a written request "describ[ing] the records he wanted to see . . . ." Commonwealth v. Chestnut, 250 S.W.3d 655, 661 (Ky. 2008). Although he was not required to describe the records "with particularity," Mr. Southard's request was adequate only if "a reasonable person could ascertain the nature" of the records sought based on the description he provided. Id. ; KRS 61.872(2). Mr. Southard does not explain why he requested an inmate roster when, in fact, he wished to access the unit bedboard, a term with which he was apparently familiar inasmuch as he employed it in his letter of appeal. KSR does not maintain a record denominated an "inmate roster" and denied Mr. Southard's request on this basis, thereby "openly assert[ing] its reasons for nondisclosure." Chestnut at 662. Having done so, KSR discharged its duties under the Act.
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:
Tommy Southard, # 159170William MustageAmy V. Barker