Opinion
Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
This matter having been presented to the Attorney General in an open records appeal, and the Attorney General being sufficiently advised, we find that the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (EKCC) properly relied on KRS 197.025(2), incorporated into the Open Records Act by operation of KRS 61.878(1)(l), in denying Robert Dobson's request for a copy of the memorandum "concerning the water conditions for West Liberty regarding the 'haloacidic' levels in the water system and other cancerous causing agent." We believe that 98-ORD-150 and 01-ORD-129, as they relate to KRS 197.025(2) , are controlling. A copy of those decisions are attached hereto and incorporated by reference. We affirm the EKCC's denial of Mr. Dobson's request on the basis that the requested memorandum is not a record that contains a "specific reference" to him personally. KRS 197.025(2); 98-ORD-150.
In his letter of appeal, Mr. Dobson also argues that he is entitled to the requested record since it pertained to him. However, the release of records under KRS 61.884 is subject to the provisions of KRS 61.878. KRS 61.884 provides:
Any person shall have access to any public record relating to him or in which he is mentioned by name, upon presentation of appropriate identification, subject to the provisions of KRS 61.878.
(Emphasis added.)
As noted above, we concluded the institution properly relied on KRS 61.878(1)(l) and KRS 197.025(2) in denying Mr. Dobson's request. Accordingly, since the requested records are exempt from disclosure under these provisions, they are not required to be disclosed under KRS 61.884. 1 00-ORD-204.
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 proceedings.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 Mr. Dobson also asserts that another inmate had requested the same memorandum and was denied access because he had not provided funds for payment of fees for the copy, but was advised that after payment of cost of the documents, he would receive a copy of the memorandum. We have insufficient information regarding the circumstances surrounding this request and, thus, do not address it here. As noted above, we concluded the institution properly relied on KRS 61.878(1)(l) and KRS 197.025(2) in denying Mr. Dobson's request.