Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear, Attorney General; Gordon Slone, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether Little Sandy Correctional Complex ("LSCC") violated the Open Records Act by providing a corrected set of minutes of the Hunger Strike Committee Meeting of January 19, 2018, to an inmate. For the reasons stated below, we find no violation of the Act.
Uriah Pasha ("Appellant"), an inmate confined at LSCC, initiated this appeal by letter dated January 30, 2018, challenging the disposition by LSCC of a request he made on January 26, 2018. Appellant requested:
A copy of any and all minutes of hunger strike meetings from 1/10/2018 - 1/26/2018 concerning Uriah Pasha #092028; and statements recorded by the Hunger Strike Committee that were given by Uriah Pasha #092028 from 1-10-2018 until 1/26/2018.
The appeal explains that Appellant received a copy of the "Minutes of Hunger Strike Meeting" of January 19, 2018, on January 29, 2018, and, at some undefined point in time after that, received another copy of the January 19 minutes that was different from the original copy. Appellant pointed out that the original minutes of January 19 stated: "Inmate Pasha has refuse[d] to eat for 20th consecutive meals as of 6:32 pm on 1-16-18." The second set of minutes for January 19 stated: "Inmate Pasha has refuse[d] to eat for 20th consecutive meals as of 6:32 pm on 1-18-18." (Emphasis added.) Appellant also claims that the signatures on the two sets of minutes are different, and concludes that the second set of minutes is a forgery.
Upon receiving notification of the appeal from this Office, Assistant General Counsel Amy V. Barker, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, responded on behalf of LSCC. Ms. Barker stated:
The minutes dated January 19 were corrected after a typographical error was found in them. (Affidavit of Malcolm Smith attached as exh. 1.) The record sent was the responsive record at the time the request was made by inmate Pasha. Inmate Pasha cites no law to show that an institution cannot correct a typographical error in a record.
Attached to Ms. Barker's response was an affidavit from Deputy Warden Malcolm Smith, in which he attested that he is the Chair of the Hunger Strike Committee, and that:
A typographical error was noted in the Hunger Strike minutes for January 19, 2018 after they were initially prepared. The minutes were corrected when it was caught. The minutes had not been circulated at the time inmate Pasha requested them as open records. He received a corrected copy after the correction was made.
In OAG 77-494, this Office reviewed a matter regarding changing the minutes of a board of education meeting. Although the context of the current appeal is somewhat different than the question presented in OAG 77-494, the principle applied in that opinion is relevant here. That opinion stated:
[T]he minutes may be amended at a subsequent meeting to conform them to the facts, but not to reflect a change in position on the matter involved in the question voted on. If through inadvertence the minutes have been inaccurately made, for example where the minutes failed to show the yeas and nays as actually voted, it is legal to correct the minutes according to the truth. It would be improper, however, to change the minutes to show something other than what had actually occurred at the previous meeting. To do this would be tantamount to falsification of records.
Id.
In this appeal, Deputy Warden Smith has attested that the minutes of January 19, 2018, were corrected for a typographical mistake. 1 As in OAG 77-494, the minutes were corrected to conform them to the facts. As such, we find no violation of the Act by LSCC in its disposition of Appellant's request.
As to Appellant's claim that the signatures on the two versions of the January 19 meeting are different, the record on appeal does not contain sufficient evidence regarding that allegation for this Office to conclusively resolve that issue, although the affidavit of Deputy Warden Smith lends credibility to the position of LSCC. Absent objective evidence to the contrary, this office has neither a reason to question the veracity of the signatures on the minutes, nor a basis to find a violation. In short, the role of the Attorney General in adjudicating a dispute related to open records is narrowly defined by KRS 61.880(2); this office is without authority to deviate from that legislative mandate. See OAG 89-81; 03-ORD-061; 05-ORD-222; 08-ORD-172; 11-ORD-209.
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 shall be notified of any action in circuit court, but shall not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 Comparison of the two sets of minutes shows that the date on which Appellant refused to eat his 20th meal was changed from 1-16-18 to 1-18-18.