Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Department of Corrections violated the Open Records Act in failing to respond to Jeffrey A. Guelda's February 10, 2003 request for information relating to James Lang. In a letter addressed to "Kentucky Department of Corrections, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601," Mr. Guelda asked that Corrections "inform [him] as to the status of inmate #89445, i.e., James Lang." Specifically, he asked whether "the aforementioned individual [is] on parole, incarcerated ([and] if so name and address of institution)." Having received no response to his request, Mr. Guelda initiated this appeal on March 6, 2003. Our review of the record on appeal confirms that the Department did not violate the Act.
In supplemental correspondence directed to this office following commencement of Mr. Guelda's appeal, Department of Corrections staff attorney, Emily Dennis, responded to Mr. Guelda's letter of appeal. Noting that his letter was addressed to no particular person, she advised:
As a preliminary matter, I checked with Commissioner Vertner Taylor, the Official Custodian of Central Office Records, and Branch Manager Karen Cronen, Custodian of Client Records. Neither office has record of having received Mr. Guelda's request. Since the request is inadequately addressed and has not been received, the Department submits that Mr. Guelda's appeal is premature. The Department further submits that even if it had received Mr. Guelda's letter, Corrections would have denied the request, since Guelda asks for information, not reasonably identifiable public documents.
The Kentucky Open Records Act provides persons access to public records. KRS 61.872(2) provides as follows: "Any person shall have the right to inspect public records. The official custodian may require written application, signed by the applicant and with his name printed legibly on the application, describing the records to be inspected." As noted in previous decisions of the Attorney General, requests for information are outside the scope of open records law and an agency is not obligated to honor a request for information under the law. 02-ORD-88; KRS 61.870 et seq. The Kentucky Open Records Act addresses requests for records, not requests for information. 03-ORD-028.
In closing, Ms. Dennis noted that Mr. Guelda might be able to access the information he seeks through the Kentucky Offender Online Lookup (KOOL) System, located at http://www.corrections.ky.gov/. We find that Ms. Dennis' response, a copy of which was mailed to Mr. Guelda, was entirely consistent with the requirements of theOpen Records Act.
The parties to this appeal are well aware that KRS 61.880(1), operating in tandem with KRS 197.025(4) and (7) (enclosed), set forth the duties of the Department of Corrections upon receipt of an open records request. We will not unnecessarily lengthen this decision with a recitation of these statutes. The Department cannot respond to an open records request it does not receive. Upon inquiry, Ms. Dennis determined that neither Commissioner Taylor, Official Custodian of Central Office Records, nor Karen Cronen, Custodian of Client Records, received a copy of Mr. Guelda's inadequately addressed request. 1 We therefore find no error in the Department's failure to respond.
Characterizing Mr. Guelda's appeal as premature, a characterization with which we agree, Ms. Dennis nevertheless proceeded to evaluate the merits of his complaint. She correctly asserted that the Department is not obligated to honor requests for information, noting that at page 2 of 95-ORD-131, the Attorney General 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."
This position finds additional support in 99-ORD-71, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, and is premised on the language of the statutes themselves, including KRS 61.871 (providing that "free and open examination of public records is in the public interest"), KRS 61.872(1) (providing that "[a]ll public records shall be open for inspection by any person"), and KRS 61.872(2) (providing that "[a]ny person shall have the right to inspect public records") (emphasis added). We agree in full with Ms. Dennis' analysis of the Department's duties, or lack thereof, upon actual receipt of a request for information.
Although she was not statutorily obligated to do so, Ms. Dennis suggested an alternative mechanism by which Mr. Guelda may obtain the information he seeks. She is to be commended for doing so. We trust that Mr. Guelda will avail himself of this resource and desist from submitting improperly framed and inadequately addressed requests for information.
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.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 The fact that Mr. Guelda labeled his request "a Kentucky Open Records Request" was unavailing to the extent that it apparently never reached the Department of Corrections.