Request By:
Roscoe Dees, Jr., # 134522
Lee Adjustment Center
P.O. Box 900
Beattyville, KY 41311John T. Damron
Deputy General Counsel
Department of Corrections
Office of General Counsel
2439 Lawrenceburg Road
Frankfort, KY 40602
Pamela Trautner
Director of CommunicationsDepartment of Corrections
P.O. Box 2400
Frankfort, KY 40602-2400
Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the Department of Corrections violated the Open Records Act in responding to the open records request of Roscoe Dees, Jr. for:
Total number out of seven (7) inmates, serving PFO 1 & 2, attached to Possession of Drug Paraphernalia sentences, that are African-American. (1) of the two (2) serving PFO 1 for violation of KRS 218A.500, how many are African-American - (2) How many of the five (5) serving PFO 2 are African-American?
Pamela Trautner, Director of Communications, responded to Mr. Dees' request, on behalf of the Department, providing the following information to his questions:
1. What is the number of inmates in facilities in the Kentucky Department of Corrections who have a felony conviction for violating KRS 218A.500?
2. What is the number of persistent offenders for the same offense?
In an additional response to Mr. Dees' request for information, John T. Damron, Deputy General Counsel, advised:
Your letter to our Director of Communications has been forwarded to me for a response. We do not have a document that reports the statistical information that you have requested. Therefore, your request is denied. However, statistical information might be obtainable but there is a financial charge involved that could exceed $ 50.00 per hour if the Department creates a new document to report your inquiry.
We are asked to determine whether the Department's denial of Mr. Dees' request for information violated the Open Records Act. For the reasons that follow, we conclude there was no violation of the Act.
The Kentucky Open Records Act addresses requests for records, not requests for information. In 95-ORD-131, p. 2, we observed:
Requests for information, as distinguished from records, are outside of the scope of the open records provisions. See, e.g., OAG 89-77. Our position is premised on the notion that "[o]pen records provisions address only inspection of records . . . [and] do not require public agencies or officials to provide or compile specific information to conform to the parameters of a given request."
The purpose of the Open Records Act is not to provide information, but to provide access to public records that are not exempt by law. OAG 79-547. Accordingly, we conclude that the Department did not violate the Act in denying Mr. Dees' request for information. Although the Department did provide certain information relative to his request, it was not required to do so under the Act.
Moreover, as noted in 95-ORD-131, an agency is not required to "compile specific information to conform to the parameters of a given request." The Department advised Mr. Dees that it did not have a record that contained the statistical information he was seeking. Thus, the Department's response was consistent with prior decisions of this office and did not constitute a violation of the Open Records Act.
Moreover, this office has long recognized that a public agency is not obligated to compile a list or create a record to satisfy an open records request. See, e.g., OAG 76-375; OAG 90-101; 96-ORD-251. The Cabinet's response indicated that it did not maintain any lists that met the descriptions provided in the request. Under this circumstance, the Cabinet is not required to create a list which does not already exist. Accordingly, we conclude that this response was, also, proper and consistent with the Open Records Act.
As an alternative, the Department advised Mr. Dees that the requested statistical information might be obtainable, but there would be a financial charge that could exceed $ 50.00 per hour if it created a new document containing the information he was seeking. Mr. Dees questions this requirement.
We know of no authority under which a public agency can charge $ 50.00 per hour to research its files and compile a record to meet the parameters of an open records request. However, as noted above, if an agency does not have a record that contains the requested information, it is not required to create a new document containing the information in response to an open records request.
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 should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.