Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway,Attorney General;Amye L. BensenhaverAssistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
Charon Anderson appeals the Henderson County Detention Center's refusal to respond to multiple open records requests she transmitted by unspecified means on December 23, 2014. In separate letters, Ms. Anderson requested access to or a copy of:
. any policy relating to the issuance of toilet paper to the inmate population;
. a grievance dated December 23, 2014, relating to Ms. Anderson's indigency "and staff being in violation of KY Practice and Procedure § 5:26";
. a grievance dated December 23, 2014, relating to Ms. Anderson's "mental health issues being denied and staff being in violation of Rules Policies and Procedures page 8(1) addressing [her] medical issues";
. volume 1 and 2 of "all of [her] medical records."
In her letter of appeal, Ms. Anderson indicates that the requests were returned to her "unanswered" on December 31, 2014.
In correspondence directed to this office after Ms. Anderson submitted her appeal, Jailer Ron Herrington responded:
Inmate Anderson is in violation again of Department of Corrections Policy on access to Inmate and Facility Records by placing her request on a piece of paper. KRS 61.870 states that the Department of Corrections shall refuse to accept the hand delivery of an open records request from a confined inmate.
Policies and procedures via Department of Corrections dated 14 May 2007 Policy Number 6.1 states that the request shall be forwarded either by Institutional mail [or] by first class mail and that hand delivery of an open records request shall not be permitted.
Mr. Herrington then addressed Ms. Anderson's concerns about policies governing distribution of toilet paper, her grievances, and her medical records. A copy of Mr. Herrington's letter was transmitted to Ms. Anderson along with attachments further explaining the Detention Center's policies and practices.
The Henderson County Detention Center relied on Kentucky Corrections Policy and Procedure 6.1 Section II(B)(2) in refusing to respond to Ms. Anderson's December 23 requests. That policy states:
The request [to inspect public records] shall be forwarded either:
a. by institutional mail to the coordinator; or
b. by first class regular mail to the custodian of the agencies records [sic].
*Hand delivery of an open records request shall not be permitted.
Neither the Henderson County Detention Center nor Ms. Anderson describe the method by which she transmitted her December 23 open records requests. If, in fact, she attempted transmission by hand-delivery, the Detention Center's refusal to respond was legally justified.
In Chestnut , the Kentucky Supreme Court rejected the Department of Corrections' reliance on a Policy and Procedure that required an inmate to provide a "reasonably particular description of the record being requested.""As an administrative agency," the Court concluded, DOC could not "by its rules and regulations, amend, alter, enlarge or limit the terms of legislative enactment," and the Open Records Act contained no particularity requirement. Chestnut at 662. By its express terms, KRS 197.025(4) provides that "KRS 61.870 to 61.884 to the contrary notwithstanding, the Department of Corrections shall refuse to accept the hand delivery of an open records request from a confined inmate. "The policy upon which the Detention Center relied does not "purport [] to add a requirement not found in the statutes." Id . Its refusal to respond was proper if Ms. Anderson hand-delivered her requests.
The record on appeal does not describe the method by which Ms. Anderson submitted her requests. Accordingly, we cannot conclusively resolve this issue. On appeal, the Detention Center effectively responded to each request, providing narrative responses in some cases and letters from agents and employees aimed at fulfilling her requests. We therefore affirm the Henderson County Detention Center's ultimate disposition of her requests, regardless of whether she hand-delivered them, because of the extraordinary efforts it made to address her concerns.
Either party may appeal this decision 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.
Footnotes
Footnotes