Request By:
IN RE: Charles Douglas Ingram/Department of Corrections
Opinion
Opinion By: Chris Gorman, Attorney General; Amye B. Majors, Assistant Attorney General
OPEN RECORDS DECISION
This matter comes to the Attorney General on appeal from the Department of Correction's partial denial of Mr. Charles Douglas Ingram's July 24, 1992, and August 20, 1992, requests to inspect certain documents he believes to be in the Cabinet's custody. Those records are identified as:
1. An appeal of adjustment committee action submitted to Warden William C. Seabold on July 3, 1992;
2. All correspondence and memoranda submitted by Mr. Ingram to various public agencies other than the Department of Corrections in the period from March 1992 through June 1992 and specifically identified in his open records request;
3. All final judgments entered in sixteen separate criminal cases;
4. A presentence report filed on December 1, 1992, by the probation office located in Pulaski County;
5. All reports and correspondence compiled by the Department of Corrections relative to "offender characteristics, prison adjustment, and activities;"
6. All reports and correspondence compiled by the Department of Corrections relative to "offender's mental and emotional health;"
7. All correspondence previously submitted by Mr. Ingram to the Department of Corrections;
8. All reports or correspondence submitted by the Jefferson County Corrections Department;
9. All correspondence submitted by Mr. Ingram to Eastern Correctional Complex, Northpoint Treatment Center, and Kentucky State Penitentiary relative to "institutional needs, corrections officers, grievance issues, classification appeals, disciplinary appeals."
In addition, Mr. Ingram, an inmate at Kentucky State Penitentiary, appeals the Department's refusal to amend the records which relate to him which he believes are inaccurate, irrelevant, untimely, and incomplete.
On behalf of the Department of Corrections, Ms. Karen DeFew Cronen responded to Mr. Ingram's July 24, 1992 request in a letter dated August 14, 1992. Ms. Cronen released numerous documents from his inmate file, including judgments of sentencing courts, incident reports, transfer authorization forms, restoration of good time forms, resident record cards, notice of discharge by conditional release, and correspondence received from Mr. Ingram and responses to same. Additionally, she released F.B.I. sheets and materials relating to the U.S. Marshal's detainer. Ms. Cronen thus released various documents consisting of some 159 pages to Mr. Ingram. With respect to other documents requested by Mr. Ingram, Ms. Cronen advised that his inmate file did not contain copies of final judgments relating to district court actions, and that he should contact the Circuit Court Clerk's Office in Jefferson and Pulaski Counties, and provided him with the addresses of the clerk's offices. Further, she advised him that copies of correspondence submitted to agencies outside of the Department of Corrections should be submitted to those agencies. Finally, she noted:
KRS 61.878 [sic], commonly referred to as the Open Records Law, allows agencies such as ours to exempt from said law certain documents contained in our inmate files. As a result thereof, certain documents contained in our inmate files are open upon request and without justification, certain documents are open to subject only [,] and certain documents are closed and given out only upon an order from a court of competent jurisdiction. KRS 61.872(2) also provides we may require written application describing the records requested.
Therefore, if you feel you need copies of documents other than those provided, you should request same in writing, identifying each item requested by name (you must be specific), whereupon we will ascertain which documents can be furnished you under the Open Records Law and which documents are closed.
In Ms. Cronen's absence, Ms. Geraldine Glass, Offender Records Specialist Principal, responded to Mr. Ingram's second open records request in a letter dated August 26, 1992. She advised him that review of his file failed to disclose any appeal of adjustment committee action submitted to Warden Seabold on July 3, 1992, and that the Department was therefore unable to provide him with copies of same. She suggested that he contact Warden Seabold to obtain a copy. She reminded Mr. Ingram that requests for copies of correspondence with other agencies outside the Department of Corrections should be directed to those agencies. Ms. Glass released the other documents identified in Mr. Ingram's second request.
We are asked to determine if the Department of Corrections violated the Open Records Act in responding to Mr. Ingram's requests. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the Department's actions were largely consistent with the Act.
KRS 61.880(1) sets forth procedural guidelines for agency response to an open records request. That statute provides:
Each public agency, upon any request for records made under KRS 61.870 to 61.884, shall determine within three (3) days, excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with the request and shall notify in writing the person making the request, within the three (3) day period, of its decision. An agency response denying, in whole or in part, inspection of any record shall include a statement of the specific exception authorizing the withholding of the record and a brief explanation of how the exception applies to the record withheld. The response shall be issued by the official custodian or under his authority, and it shall constitute final agency action.
The Department of Corrections notified Mr. Ingram of its intention to honor his request, and provided him with copies of all available records requested. Although the responses were not issued within three business days, which fact is mitigated, though not excused, by the large volume of records requested, they complied in all respects with the rules of procedure governing agency response to an open records request. If his requests for records were misdirected, it referred Mr. Ingram to the proper agency. If no record existed which would satisfy his request, the Department so advised. The Department of Corrections demonstrated a laudable concern for both the spirit and the letter of the Open Records Act in its responses to Mr. Ingram's requests.
Turning to the issue of amending the apparently "inaccurate" records in Mr. Ingram's file, we remind him that the Open Records Act does not provide a mechanism for correcting errors. Such matters are beyond the scope of the Open Records Act.
Mr. Ingram may challenge this decision by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882.