Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear, Attorney General; J. Marcus Jones, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Kentucky State Reformatory ("KSR") violated the Kentucky Open Records Act when it denied Donald Hall's request for copies of the job assignments for a specific correctional officer. For the reasons stated below, we find no violation of the Act.
On January 12, 2018, KSR received a Request to Inspect/Receive Public Records form from inmate Donald Hall ("Appellant"). Appellant submitted the request to obtain the job assignment for a specific correctional officer for the dates of "Sept. 21, 22, 28, and 29, 2017, that will show she was assigned to work as security officer in Dorm 5." Offender Information Specialist Kim Campbell issued a response that denied Mr. Hall's open records request. Ms. Campbell informed Mr. Hall that the denial was based on the fact that "[t]he records you are requesting do not contain a specific reference to you and the records are exempt from disclosure to you under KRS 61.878(1)(l) 1 and KRS 197.025(2) 2."
On appeal, Appellant raises three issues. First, Appellant requests that the Attorney General assist him with difficulties he is having obtaining copies of documents through the KSR legal services department. Appellant states that he raises this issue because he experienced problems getting access to the legal office prior to the end of the twenty day deadline imposed by KRS 197.025(3) 3 for inmates filing appeals to denials of open records requests. Appellant also notes that he has filed an action in federal court involving the correctional officer mentioned in the open records request, and that he needs access to the legal services department in order to make copies for that case.
Appellant also argues that the records custodian's reliance on KRS 61.878(1)(l) and KRS 197.025(2) is misplaced. Appellant states that the KSR fails to state or show that "the inspection or disclosure of the request [sic] records would be a threat to any of the above[.]" Appellant argues that the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet should state how it will be a security risk to provide the requested record. The third issue Appellant raises is an assertion that the requested documents are necessary for the federal court action. Appellant states that he needs the requested record to impeach interrogatory responses attributed to the correctional officer mentioned in the open records request.
Amy V. Barker, Assistant General Counsel, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, responded on behalf of KSR by letter dated February 8, 2018. Ms. Barker notes that the grounds for the denial of the open records request was KRS 197.025(2) in conjunction with KRS 61.878(1)(l). She cites 08-ORD-271, p.3, for the statement that "KRS 197.025(2) expressly authorizes correctional facilities like [KSR] to deny a request by an inmate unless the record contains a specific reference to that inmate. " On February 16, 2018, this office requested additional documentation for substantiation, pursuant to authority granted to the Attorney General in KRS 61.880(2)(c). Ms. Barker forwarded the pertinent job assignment sheet that Appellant requested in response to our request.
The exemption stated in KRS 197.025(2) allowed KSR to deny Appellant's request for the job assignment sheets of the correctional officer. The statute states that the department shall not be required to comply with a request for any record from any inmate "unless the request is for a record which contains a specific reference to that individual." We interpret this provision to require that the inmate be specifically referenced by name in the requested document. 14-ORD-224; 09-ORD-057. Job assignment sheets do not contain a specific reference to an inmate. These documents identify the correctional officer by name and rank, state their daily assignment areas, and the number of hours in which the officers shall be on duty. The documents also list leave codes and identify correctional officers on leave for that date. The documents do not reference any inmate by name or institutional numbers. Therefore, this Office finds that job assignment sheets are not records that contain a specific reference to an inmate.
KRS 197.025(1) 4 allows the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections to consider a threat to security when considering access to any record. However, as KSR relied on KRS 197.025(2) to deny the open records request, there is no need to address at length the Appellant's reference to the need to identify a security risk in order to deny the requested records. KSR did not cite 197.025(1) in denying Appellant's request, and did not raise the issue on appeal. Therefore, we find that reliance upon KRS 197.025(2) was sufficient basis to deny the open records request.
Appellant expects to find information in the job assignment sheets that will impeach inconsistent testimony regarding shift and duty assignments. However, this Office does not have authority to consider need, or the intended use of the documents. KRS 61.880(2)(a) 5 provides this office jurisdiction to review open records appeals and issue written decisions stating whether the agency violated provisions of KRS 61.870 to 61.884. Neither the Open Records Act nor KRS 197.025 require KSR to evaluate the intended use of the documents when considering disclosure. We find that KSR did not violate the Open Records Act.
A party aggrieved by this decision shall 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