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 Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex ("EKCC") violated the Open Records Act in its disposition of the open records request of inmate Uriah Pasha. In his request dated July 26, 2013, Mr. Pasha requested "[a] copy of Check # 074167; and the C. P. O. that generated it. Uriah Pasha # 092028 caused the check to be mailed to Securus June 6, 2013. I need a clear copy that shows who cashed the check because I'm writing the F. B. I. and bringing a charge of Mail Fraud. The first copy I received was illegible. " On July 30, 2013, records custodian Tammy Cooper produced a copy of the front and back of the check in question. Mr. Pasha appealed to this office on July 31, 2013, complaining that he had not received a copy of the C. P. O. and that the second copy he had received was as illegible as the first.
On August 13, 2013, Amy V. Barker, Assistant General Counsel, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, advised that EKCC had initially misread the request as to the C. P. O. and had sent Mr. Pasha a copy of that on August 12, 2013. We accordingly consider this appeal moot as the C. P. O. Cf. 04-ORD-046; 03-ORD-087; OAG 91-140. Regarding the check, Ms. Barker states:
EKCC does not maintain copies of checks of the type sought by inmate Pasha. As a courtesy, EKCC obtained a copy of the check from the bank and provided that copy to inmate Pasha. The copy of the check is a [ sic ] scanned by the bank and EKCC does not have the original cancelled check since they are not returned by the bank. EKCC staff reviewed the scanned check and it does not appear to show any signature or deposit stamp. It shows a series of words and numbers printed on the back of the check by one of the banks that processed the check. EKCC does not have a more legible copy to provide.
A public agency cannot afford a requester access to a record that it does not have or that does not exist. 99-ORD-98. The agency discharges its duty under the Open Records Act by affirmatively so stating. 99-ORD-150. In this case, EKCC has gone beyond the strict requirements of the Open Records Act by requesting a copy of the check from the bank, and is not at fault for the poor quality of the copy. We therefore find no violation of 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:
Uriah Pasha # 092028Ms. Tammy CooperAmy V. Barker, Esq.