Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway,Attorney General;Amye L. Bensenhaver,Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
Charon Anderson appeals the Department of Corrections' failure to respond to her December 18, 2014, request for a free copy of the "CPP that will explain the restoration of restorable good time." The department denies receipt of the request, but responds on appeal that Ms. Anderson is not entitled to a copy of the policy because it does not contain a specific reference to her. Additionally, the department asserts that under the rule announced in Friend v. Rees, 696 S.W.2d 325 (Ky. App. 1985), Ms. Anderson is not entitled to free copies of records obtained under the Open Records Act. We agree with the department.
The Attorney General has consistently approved the department's reliance on KRS 197.025(2) to deny an inmate request for records that do not contain a specific reference to the requesting inmate. That statute provides, "KRS 61.870 to 61.884 to the contrary notwithstanding, the department shall not be required to comply with a request for any record from any inmate confined in a jail or any facility or any individual on active supervision under the jurisdiction of the department, unless the request is for a record which contains a specific reference to that individual." It is incorporated into the Open Records Act by KRS 61.878(1)(1). 1 In 03-ORD-073, we upheld the facility's denial of an inmate request for a Corrections Department memorandum relating to work performed by inmates diagnosed with hepatitis, reasoning that the "net effect of the requirement that the requested record contain [a specific reference to the requesting inmate] has been to further curtail the inmate's right of access to records maintained by the Department of Corrections." 03-ORD-073, p. 3. 2 Under this statutory standard, the denial of Ms. Anderson's request for the policy relating to restoration of good time credit was proper inasmuch as that policy contains no "specific reference" to Ms. Anderson. We therefore affirm the department's denial of her requests.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the requested record contained a specific reference to Ms. Anderson and was not otherwise exempt from inspection, she would not be entitled to a free copy of the record. KRS 61.872(3)(b) states that "[i]f the person requesting the public records requests that copies of the records be mailed, the official custodian shall mail the copies upon receipt of all [copying] fees and the cost of mailing ." (Emphasis added.) KRS 61.874(1) states that "[w]hen copies are requested, the custodian may require a written request and advance payment of the prescribed [copying] fee, including postage where appropriate ." (Emphasis added.) Accord, Friend v. Rees, 696 S.W.2d 325 (Ky. App. 1985) (approving imposition of reasonable copying fees on inmate open records requester) . We find no error in the department's handling of Ms. Anderson's December 18 request for the policy that explains restoration of good time credit.
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