Request By:
Joseph L. Silverburg, # 151608
Lee Adjustment Center
P. O. Box 900
Beattyville, KY 41311Bobby Moore
Records Custodian Lee Adjustment Center
P. O. Box 900
Beattyville, KY 41311Sherril Gautreaux
Assistant General Counsel, Operations
Corrections Corporation of America
10 Burton Hills Boulevard
Nashville, TN 37215Emily Dennis
Dept. of Corrections
Office of General Counsel
2439 Lawrenceburg Road
P.O. Box 2400
Frankfort, KY 40602-2400
Opinion
Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the actions of the Lee Adjustment Center (LAC) relative to the open records request of Joseph L. Silverburg violated the Open Records Act. For the reasons that follow, we are unable to resolve the factual issue as to whether LAC received Mr. Silverburg's request and suggest that he resubmit his request to the LAC's Records Custodian, if he has not already done so, in order that the LAC may respond to his request, as required by KRS 197.025(7).
In his February 15, 2005 letter of appeal to this office, along with attachments, Mr. Silverburg contended, among other things, that the LAC had denied him access to "any letters, notes, grievances or any other documentation received by Unit Manager Glen Fox and Sgt. Kenneth Snowden from the undersigned complaining about inmates being loud in G-Wing at night."
After receipt of Notification and a copy of the letter of appeal, Sherril Gautreaux, Assistant General Counsel, Operations, Corrections Corporation of America, by letter dated February 24, 2005, provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. In her response, Ms. Gautreaux advised that after receipt of Mr. Silverburg's appeal, LAC staff members Glen Fox and Sgt. K. Snowden both stated that they did not receive the request from Mr. Silverburg.
Ms. Gautreaux further advised that neither of the staff members were charged with the duties and responsibilities of records custodian at LAC. She stated that the LAC Records Custodian was Bobby Moore, who advised that he had not received a copy of Mr. Silverburg's open records request.
In his letter of appeal to this office, Mr. Silverburg argues he submitted the open records request. In its response, LAC states that it had never received the request and that Mr. Silverburg must submit his request to Bobby Moore, the LAC open records custodian in compliance with the established procedure by which to request LAC records.
Regarding disagreements of this nature between a requester and a public agency, this office, in OAG 89-81, stated:
This office cannot, with the information currently available, adjudicate a dispute regarding a disparity, if any, between records for which inspection has already been permitted, and those sought but not provided. Indeed, such is not the role of this office under open records provisions. It seems clear that you have permitted inspection of some records [the requester] asked to inspect, and that copies of some records have been provided. Hopefully any dispute regarding the records here involved can be worked out through patient consultation and cooperation between the parties.
Insufficient information is presented in this appeal for this office to resolve the factual dispute concerning the actual delivery and receipt of Mr. Silverburg's open records request. Accordingly, if he has not already done so, Mr. Silverburg may wish to resubmit his request, in accordance with established procedures, to Bobby Moore, the LAC open records custodian, so that the agency may properly respond to his request, as required by KRS 197.025(7).
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.