Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear,Attorney General;Michelle D. Harrison,Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
Christopher Hopper initiated this appeal by letter dated December 23, 2016, challenging the denial by the Kentucky State Reformatory ("KSR") of his undated request for a copy of the "[c]ontract provisions regarding Keefe Commissary obligations with Ky. Dept. of Corrections ["DOC"] -- expressly the amount of fund [s] paid for college programs for 2016-2017 and current balance of that account." By letter dated December 16, 2016, J. Hillenbrandt, KSR Inmate Accounts, notified Mr. Hopper that "[u]pon contacting the Budget Director at our central office in Frankfort we were told that your request for this information was denied." Upon receiving notification of Mr. Hopper's appeal from this office, Assistant General Counsel Amy V. Barker, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, responded on behalf of KSR. Ms. Barker asserted that KSR properly denied Mr. Hopper's request for information as the "Attorney General's Office has determined that requests for information are outside the scope of the open records law and an agency is not obligated to honor a request for information," citing KRS 61.872(3)(b) and prior Open Records Decisions. Significantly, however, KSR further acknowledged that Mr. Hopper's December 23, 2016, request could also have been properly denied on the basis of KRS 197.025(2), incorporated into the Open Records Act by operation of KRS 61.878(1)(l) "because the contract contains no specific reference to the inmate who requested a copy." 1 Citing a number of Open Records Decisions by this office, Ms. Barker observed that a "contract with a commissary company to run the inmate canteen at KSR is not the type of record which contains a specific reference to any inmate. " Accordingly, KSR asked this office to affirm its denial.
Early on, this office clarified that "[t]he purpose of the Open Records Law is not to provide information, but to provide access to public records which are not exempt by law." OAG 79-547, p. 2; 04-ORD-144. Accordingly, the Attorney General has consistently held that requests for information, as opposed to requests for public records, "need not be honored." 00-ORD-76, p. 3, citing OAG 76-375; 04-ORD-080; 12-ORD-096. Simply put, "what the public gets is what . . . [the public agency has] and in the format in which . . . [the agency has] it." Id. p. 5, OAG 91-12, p. 5. A review of the statutory provisions upon which these decisions are premised, including KRS 61.871 (providing that "free and open examination of public records is in the public interest"), KRS 61.872(1) (providing that "[a]ll public records shall be open for inspection by any person"), and KRS 61.872(2) (providing that "[a]ny person shall have the right to inspect public records ") (emphasis added), validates our position. Simply put, KSR is not statutorily required to honor a request which is properly characterized as a request for information such as Mr. Hopper's request for the "amount of fund [s] paid for college programs for 2016-2017 and current balance of that account." See 12-ORD-077.
Although public agencies are normally required to make any non-exempt records that may contain the information sought available for inspection i.e. , the contract(s) which contains responsive provisions, KRS 197.025(2) expressly authorizes correctional facilities within the jurisdiction of the DOC, such as KSR, to deny a request by any inmate unless the record(s) contain a specific reference to that inmate. The Attorney General has consistently recognized as much. Because the records being sought do not contain a specific reference to Mr. Hopper, as required by the language of KRS 197.025(2), he is not entitled to inspect or to receive copies of those records, notwithstanding any underlying concerns that he may have. Regardless of the hardship Mr. Hopper may believe that application of KRS 197.025(2) imposes, he is expressly precluded from gaining access to records which do not contain a specific reference to him by the mandatory language of this provision; accordingly, the denial by KSR was justified under KRS 197.025(2), incorporated into the Open Records Act by operation of KRS 61.878(1)(l), even if his request had been properly framed. 99-ORD-161, p. 2. See also 03-ORD-074; 07-ORD-219; 08-ORD-081.
Either party may appeal this decision by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court per KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General must 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