24-ORD-014
January 22, 2024
In re: Meldrum G. Harvey/Green River Correctional Complex
Summary: The Green River Correctional Complex (“the Complex”) did
not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it denied a request for
a record that does not contain a specific reference to the inmate
requester.
Open Records Decision
Inmate Meldrum G. Harvey (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the Complex
for a copy of its contract with the Aramark Corporation to provide food services at the
Complex. The Complex denied the Appellant’s request under KRS 197.025(2) because
the record he requested does not contain a specific reference to him. The Appellant
then initiated this appeal, claiming he is entitled to a copy of the record as a “third-
party beneficiary” of the contract.
Under KRS 197.025(2), “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.” “The
department,” as used in KRS 197.025(2), refers to the Department of Corrections. See
KRS 197.010(3). But the Office has long held that any correctional facility may invoke
KRS 197.025(2), not just the Department of Corrections. See, e.g., 10-ORD-198; 95-
ORD-121. Moreover, the Office has held that an inmate is only entitled to inspect
records that specifically reference him or her by name. See, e.g., 22-ORD-119; 22-
ORD-087; 17-ORD-119; 09-ORD-057; 03-ORD-150. A record does not contain a
“specific reference” to the requesting inmate, within the meaning of KRS 197.025(2),
simply because it is relevant to, pertains to, or personally affects him. See, e.g., 22-
ORD-087; 17-ORD-119; 17-ORD-073.Here, the Appellant claims he is entitled to a copy of the contract because he is
a “third-party beneficiary.” However, the Office has previously rejected that
argument. See, e.g., 04-ORD-202 (rejecting an inmate’s claim that KRS 197.025(2)
does not apply to contracts for food services because he is a third-party beneficiary).
Although it may be true that the Appellant benefits from the food services provided
by Aramark under the contract, the Complex is not required to comply with his
request because the contract does not specifically refer to him by name.
KRS 197.025(2). As a result, the Complex did not violate the Act when it denied the
Appellant's request.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an action in the
appropriate circuit court under KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days from
the date of this decision. Under 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 proceedings. The Attorney General will accept notice of the complaint
emailed to OAGAppeals@ky.gov.
Russell Coleman
Attorney General
/s/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General
#557
Distributed to:
Meldrum G. Harvey #212530
Edward A. Baylous
Amy V. Barker
Stephanie DeFrancesco
Ann Smith